I'll never understand pro football in Ohio. Or at least the people who run pro football in Ohio. Hue Jackson goes 1-31 in two years, only to get fired in the middle of the season when the Browns actually don't suck. Marvin Lewis, meanwhile, got a two-year contract extension when it was clear to pretty much everyone that he needed to go after last season. It's apparent this season, too, which means the Bengals will probably retain him.
Other coaches won't be so lucky. As the NFL season heads into the home stretch, several coaches are coaching their final few games with their respective teams. There's usually about five or six openings every season, and this year will probably follow that trend. We already know there's definitely going to be an opening in Cleveland. Because there's no way Gregg Williams will be made the Browns' permanent coach. Frankly, I'd be shocked if it isn't Bruce Arians. He wouldn't be saying he's interested in it otherwise. It'll be like Gruden and the Raiders last year.
Speaking of Jon Gruden, he's safe. This year has been a disaster for the Raiders, but they gave him a 10-year deal and they're paying him way too much money to part ways after just one year. Especially since they're allowing him to mold the team in his own image as they get ready for their move to Vegas, where he'll be the headliner.
Also safe is Gruden's Bay Area counterpart Kyle Shanahan. He hasn't really had a chance thanks to all the 49ers' injuries this season. Steve Wilks in Arizona is probably safe, too. The Cardinals are rebuilding. Everyone knew they were going to have a rough year. You can't blame Wilks for what was expected. Ditto for Pat Shurmur. He couldn't have been expected to cure all the Giants' ills in one season.
So who is on the hot seat? I'd say the guy who shares a stadium with Shurmur is at the top of the list. Todd Bowles is in his fourth year with the Jets. He won 10 games his first year, but has only won 13 combined in the three seasons since. They've lost five in a row and have no offense. Molding Sam Darnold into a franchise quarterback will be somebody else's job.
The Packers never change coaches, but Mike McCarthy sure seems to be in trouble, too. If they miss the playoffs for the second year in a row, I think he's as good as gone. He's had a great 13 years, making the playoffs nine times (including eight straight), winning six division titles and a Super Bowl. But this certainly looks like a case of a team just needing a change.
That's two (well, three if you count Cleveland). Who else will join them on the unemployment line? Dirk Koetter in Tampa Bay. The Bucs were so good in his first year, but they regressed big time last season. And this year, they've completely collapsed after they stopped scoring 40 points a game. Worse yet, they're in the NFC South, which dooms them to continually being non-competitive in their current state.
Last year's run to the AFC Championship Game is probably the only thing keeping Jacksonville Head Coach Doug Marrone safe. This is probably the only year he'll get, though. If the Jaguars are 3-8 and on a seven-game losing streak at this point next season, though...
Same thing with Dan Quinn in Atlanta. His season isn't entirely hot yet, but it's definitely lukewarm. If the Falcons are in this same situation again next year, the memories of that Super Bowl run won't really mean too much. And let's not forget, that was the second time he handed a Super Bowl to the Patriots.
It might sound strange, but even though both of their teams are in the playoff hunt, Jason Garrett and John Harbaugh might need to make the playoffs to keep their jobs. You never know what Jerry Jones is going to do, but the Cowboys have only made the playoffs twice and only won one playoff game in Garrett's tenure. Harbaugh, meanwhile, has won a Super Bowl, but the Ravens have only played in one postseason game in the six seasons since. If, as expected, they move on from Joe Flacco to Lamar Jackson after this season, expect them to move on with a new coach, too.
Denver's an interesting case. I can see it going either way. Vance Joseph's only won 10 games total in two seasons, but it wasn't really his fault that they went 5-11 (with no quarterback) last season. And they're perhaps the scariest 5-6 team in the league this season. They've beaten the Chargers, Steelers and Seahawks, were competitive with the Chiefs twice (and should've won that Monday night game), and also gave both the Rams and Texans a game. Their only real dud was against the Jets. My guess is they give Joseph and Case Keenum another year together.
Then there's Adam Gase in Miami. The Dolphins have perpetually been in the same state for the 20 years since Dan Marino retired. Looking for something that's going to work as they try and find some way to compete with Bradicheck. Things started off well for Gase. The Dolphins got a wild card in his first season. But last year they went 6-10, and this season they're 5-6 after a 3-0 start. Miami might want to try something new once again, which means we could see a new quarterback and new head coach in South Florida in 2019.
Matt Patricia has struggled in his first year with the Lions, but, since it's his first year, he's probably safe. Same with Bills coach Sean McDermott. After all, he took that team to the playoffs last season. They haven't come close to replicating it, but no one thought they would. And he's done a solid job in a year where they were supposed to be uncompetitive, including that out-of-the-blue blowout of the Vikings in Minnesota. Sure, the losses have been ugly. But I still think he gets another year to groom his young quarterback.
We know for a fact that the Cleveland job will definitely be open. I feel confident in saying that the Jets and Bucs jobs will be available, also. If they don't make the playoffs (which I don't think they will), the Packers will also be in the market for a new coach. I'm also going to say Cincinnati and Marvin Lewis will finally part ways. I'll say Miami and Baltimore open up, too, with Jason Garrett and Vance Joseph each being given one more year.
Thursday, November 29, 2018
Tuesday, November 27, 2018
The Winter Venue Conundrum
We've officially transitioned to winter sports season. How do I know? Well, for one, it's late November. But the most obvious way to tell is because Olympic Channel is now only showing winter sports. No swimming or track & field or gymnastics in sight. All weekend, it was figure skating and skiing and luge.
Speaking of luge, a friend of mine was watching it this morning, which led (as it often does) to an extended series of text messages between us. The crux of the discussion was that there are zero sliding tracks in the entire country of Italy, which is a problem seeing as Milan and Cortina are bidding for the 2026 Winter Olympics. Against Stockholm. There aren't any sliding tracks in Sweden either, so they're proposing holding the bobsled, luge and skeleton events in Latvia.
That inspired me to do some research, which led to my finding out that there's a grand total of 17 bobsled/luge/skeleton tracks in the world (18 once the track in Beijing is completed). Four of those are in Germany! There are a bunch of "natural" luge tracks, which are built directly into the side of a mountain or along a road, but those can't be used for Olympic competition, so, for all intents and purposes, there are 17 tracks they have to choose from.
They've said that Italy's lack of a sliding venue is definitely something that could be held against the Milan-Cortina bid. (The track in Cortina, which was used for the 1956 Winter Games, closed in 2008.) The closest one is 250 miles away across the Austrian border in Igls. So, if Milan-Cortina does win the bid and they don't reopen the Cortina track (which I'm not even sure is possible), you'd have to assume that's where they'd hold the Olympic sliding competitions. (By the way, the distance between Stockholm and the track in Latvia is 350 miles and the Baltic Sea.)
Venues for bobsled/luge and, to a lesser extent, ski jumping, will always be a problem for potential Winter Olympic bid cities. And Olympics Agenda 2020, which is designed to help reduce costs, hasn't helped. In fact, it's had the opposite effect. Because they don't want them to build a bobsled/luge track they don't need, but there are only so many existing bobsled/luge tracks out there...and most of them are nowhere near the proposed host city!
What to do then? I get the idea behind Olympic Agenda 2020 and I like many of the things it proposes. We'll see that in full force at the Paris and LA Games, where they'll make use of existing venues all over the city.
But for the Winter Olympics, that's simply impractical. These cities don't have an existing sliding track or ski jump that they can use. Which means their only options are building one or using one that's ridiculously far away. And, frankly, building one makes a lot more sense than having those events in a completely different country!
And that brings us back to the original problem. These cities may have little to no practical use for a sliding track or ski jump after the Olympics, and maintaining these types of facilities are ridiculously expensive. But how is it better to tell these cities that they don't have to build one at all and can instead ship those events out to another city (or country) hundreds of miles away?
It's quite the catch-22. And it's one of the IOC's own making. They're struggling to find willing bidders to host the Winter Olympics as it is. And they're not doing themselves any favors by limiting themselves to areas that are near enough to a sliding track and ski jump.
I understand that they're trying to help by eliminating that requirement and the cost associated with it. But that should be left up to the bidding cities. If they want to build a sliding track and/or ski jump as part of their plan, more power to them. If they're close enough to an existing one to use it, even better. But it's asinine to suggest that they should have bobsled/luge hundreds of miles away...in another country...just so the organizing committee can save a few bucks.
Sochi's $51 billion price tag is still scaring everyone off, and the IOC is doing what it can to put cities at ease. Eliminating the cost of building a sliding track and/or ski jump are a part of that plan. But the alternative doesn't seem to be much better. The bobsledding and ski jumping needs to take place somewhere at a Winter Olympics. But those athletes should also be able to feel like they're a part of those Games. And I'm not sure sending them hundreds of miles away would accomplish that.
In fact, I think the opposite is true. The IOC is big on the post-Games "legacy." Well, wouldn't the construction of a world-class bobsled/luge venue be a terrific legacy for the host country? Look at what happened in Salt Lake City. Or in Calgary. Or even in PyeongChang. Let's not forget the reigning Olympic men's skeleton champion (who dominated the competition) in from South Korea. That's his home track. Don't think he'll be the last one from Korea.
So, sorry if I think it's a stupid idea to hold the sliding events elsewhere during the Winter Olympics. Yes, the cost is a significant factor. But building a track can still be worthwhile for the host city. In fact, the venue would probably pay for itself after a while since it would likely become the national team's training facility (likely for the national teams of nearby countries, too) and it would also undoubtedly become a regular stop on the World Cup circuit. Especially since it would give them somewhere new to go.
Is that enough to justify maintaining the facility long-term? Maybe not. But the existence of a sliding track and/or ski jump shouldn't be a deciding factor in who hosts the Winter Olympics. Because the IOC can't afford to be that picky.
If a city actually wants to host the Winter Olympics and already has one, great. If they don't, let them build one. Because the fact that there are fewer than 20 world-class sliding tracks in the world (four of which are in Germany) is a problem. And, frankly, they could use a few more.
Speaking of luge, a friend of mine was watching it this morning, which led (as it often does) to an extended series of text messages between us. The crux of the discussion was that there are zero sliding tracks in the entire country of Italy, which is a problem seeing as Milan and Cortina are bidding for the 2026 Winter Olympics. Against Stockholm. There aren't any sliding tracks in Sweden either, so they're proposing holding the bobsled, luge and skeleton events in Latvia.
That inspired me to do some research, which led to my finding out that there's a grand total of 17 bobsled/luge/skeleton tracks in the world (18 once the track in Beijing is completed). Four of those are in Germany! There are a bunch of "natural" luge tracks, which are built directly into the side of a mountain or along a road, but those can't be used for Olympic competition, so, for all intents and purposes, there are 17 tracks they have to choose from.
They've said that Italy's lack of a sliding venue is definitely something that could be held against the Milan-Cortina bid. (The track in Cortina, which was used for the 1956 Winter Games, closed in 2008.) The closest one is 250 miles away across the Austrian border in Igls. So, if Milan-Cortina does win the bid and they don't reopen the Cortina track (which I'm not even sure is possible), you'd have to assume that's where they'd hold the Olympic sliding competitions. (By the way, the distance between Stockholm and the track in Latvia is 350 miles and the Baltic Sea.)
Venues for bobsled/luge and, to a lesser extent, ski jumping, will always be a problem for potential Winter Olympic bid cities. And Olympics Agenda 2020, which is designed to help reduce costs, hasn't helped. In fact, it's had the opposite effect. Because they don't want them to build a bobsled/luge track they don't need, but there are only so many existing bobsled/luge tracks out there...and most of them are nowhere near the proposed host city!
What to do then? I get the idea behind Olympic Agenda 2020 and I like many of the things it proposes. We'll see that in full force at the Paris and LA Games, where they'll make use of existing venues all over the city.
But for the Winter Olympics, that's simply impractical. These cities don't have an existing sliding track or ski jump that they can use. Which means their only options are building one or using one that's ridiculously far away. And, frankly, building one makes a lot more sense than having those events in a completely different country!
And that brings us back to the original problem. These cities may have little to no practical use for a sliding track or ski jump after the Olympics, and maintaining these types of facilities are ridiculously expensive. But how is it better to tell these cities that they don't have to build one at all and can instead ship those events out to another city (or country) hundreds of miles away?
It's quite the catch-22. And it's one of the IOC's own making. They're struggling to find willing bidders to host the Winter Olympics as it is. And they're not doing themselves any favors by limiting themselves to areas that are near enough to a sliding track and ski jump.
I understand that they're trying to help by eliminating that requirement and the cost associated with it. But that should be left up to the bidding cities. If they want to build a sliding track and/or ski jump as part of their plan, more power to them. If they're close enough to an existing one to use it, even better. But it's asinine to suggest that they should have bobsled/luge hundreds of miles away...in another country...just so the organizing committee can save a few bucks.
Sochi's $51 billion price tag is still scaring everyone off, and the IOC is doing what it can to put cities at ease. Eliminating the cost of building a sliding track and/or ski jump are a part of that plan. But the alternative doesn't seem to be much better. The bobsledding and ski jumping needs to take place somewhere at a Winter Olympics. But those athletes should also be able to feel like they're a part of those Games. And I'm not sure sending them hundreds of miles away would accomplish that.
In fact, I think the opposite is true. The IOC is big on the post-Games "legacy." Well, wouldn't the construction of a world-class bobsled/luge venue be a terrific legacy for the host country? Look at what happened in Salt Lake City. Or in Calgary. Or even in PyeongChang. Let's not forget the reigning Olympic men's skeleton champion (who dominated the competition) in from South Korea. That's his home track. Don't think he'll be the last one from Korea.
So, sorry if I think it's a stupid idea to hold the sliding events elsewhere during the Winter Olympics. Yes, the cost is a significant factor. But building a track can still be worthwhile for the host city. In fact, the venue would probably pay for itself after a while since it would likely become the national team's training facility (likely for the national teams of nearby countries, too) and it would also undoubtedly become a regular stop on the World Cup circuit. Especially since it would give them somewhere new to go.
Is that enough to justify maintaining the facility long-term? Maybe not. But the existence of a sliding track and/or ski jump shouldn't be a deciding factor in who hosts the Winter Olympics. Because the IOC can't afford to be that picky.
If a city actually wants to host the Winter Olympics and already has one, great. If they don't, let them build one. Because the fact that there are fewer than 20 world-class sliding tracks in the world (four of which are in Germany) is a problem. And, frankly, they could use a few more.
Thursday, November 22, 2018
Week 12, NFL 2018
Thanksgiving is the traditional point where we start to see the playoff standings graphic at the end of the game every time a team in the hunt is playing. We're also usually done with byes by this point, which makes figuring out the playoff standings a lot less complicated. I can't even remember the last time a team had a bye this late (it was probably when there were 31 teams in the league and there had to be a bye every week). But the Rams and Chiefs sure need it after that sensational Monday night game.
What's ironic about Kansas City and the Rams being the two teams with the Thanksgiving bye is that they're both the No. 1 seed in their respective conferences right now. The loss really has very little impact on the Chiefs. It doesn't affect their tiebreakers at all, and Pittsburgh's tie means they can't be tied with the Steelers to begin with. For the Rams, though, things are interesting. They're No. 1 right now, but if the Saints win on Thanksgiving night, they drop to No. 2 behind New Orleans.
We've actually got three of the other six first-place teams playing on Thanksgiving, one in each game. And the middle game is a battle for first place in the NFC East. So, yeah, we've got a good Thanksgiving slate this year (even if the AFC is shut out of the holiday again for no good reason).
Bears (7-3) at Lions (4-6): Chicago-Alright, I'll admit it. The Bears are for real. And now they'll have a chance to make it five in a row by beating the Lions for the second time in 11 days. (Talk about quirky scheduling!) Detroit played New England at home this year, which made the Patriots seem like a natural choice for the Lions' Thanksgiving opponent. They end up going against a first-place team anyway.
Redskins (6-4) at Cowboys (5-5): Dallas-Alex Smith's injury couldn't have happened at a worse time for the Redskins. He's a big reason why Washington's in first place. Now they have to try and stay there without him. And they have a short week to get ready for a surging Dallas team that seemed out of it just two weeks ago. But a win, which would be their third straight, incredibly would move the Cowboys into first place.
Falcons (4-6) at Saints (9-1): New Orleans-The NFL sure nailed it with this year's Thanksgiving night game, too. It's a rivalry game, but it also features the team many consider to be the best in the league (I know the Saints beat them, but I still think the Rams are better). What really bothers me about the Saints is how people are going out of their way to say anybody BUT Drew Brees is the MVP. Sorry, it's Brees. And the Saints will breeze to their 10th straight win, as Atlanta's dwindling playoff hopes take another hit.
Jaguars (3-7) at Bills (3-7): Buffalo-Just 10 months ago, this was a playoff game (and that game set the NFL back about 30 years). Which seems hard to believe considering the current state of both teams. One of the most amazing stats to come out of the Monday night game was that the Chiefs and Rams combined for one fewer touchdown in that shootout than the Bills have scored all season in 10 games. I can't really say much about Jacksonville's offense, either. This game will be as awful as the one in January. Except the result will be different.
Browns (3-6-1) at Bengals (5-5): Cleveland-Things haven't been going well for the Bengals over the past month or so. They started 4-1. Now they're 5-5. Yet they were somehow clinging to a playoff spot until their loss in Baltimore last week. Things haven't exactly been great for the Browns, either. Cleveland had a great September (by their standards) before stumbling through a few bad efforts in a row. I think they got it back in their last game against Atlanta, though. Either way, one of them's gotta win.
Patriots (7-3) at Jets (3-7): New England-Oh my God! The Patriots are only in third place in the AFC! The sky must be falling! Once again the overreacting to a New England loss has been excessive. They still have a two-game division lead after that incredibly weird entire-AFC East bye week. And the Jets are the perfect post-bye opponent. You know they'll be ready. And it probably won't be pretty.
Giants (3-7) at Eagles (4-6): Philadelphia-Believe it or not, the defending champs are still in the hunt in the NFC East. This despite having a 4-6 record and being the victims of an absolute beat down in New Orleans. The Giants, meanwhile, are on...wait for it...a winning streak! Alas, the Giants' opponents were the 49ers and the Bucs, and they barely beat both of them. Beating Philadelphia is a much different proposition. As evidence by their Thursday night game at the Meadowlands earlier this season.
49ers (2-8) at Buccaneers (3-7): San Francisco-Remember when Tampa Bay was basically scoring at will early in the season? That's sure changed, huh? Well, let me rephrase. The Bucs can still score. But they have real issues preventing points. San Francisco, meanwhile, can do either. They can lose a shootout or they can lose 14-10. Either way, one of the Giants' last two victims has to win this game. Not that it matters much in the long run.
Seahawks (5-5) at Panthers (6-4): Carolina-With this week's three best NFC games all on Thanksgiving, this one ends up being FOX's marquee game on Sunday. It's an important one for wild card positioning, though. Carolina currently holds the top wild card spot, but a loss here drops them behind Seattle and gives the Seahawks the tiebreaker. We've all been working under the assumption that the NFC South is getting two playoff teams. But that's not necessarily the case if the Panthers lose this one. And they'll already know the Saints' result, too. So if New Orleans wins, they can kiss the division goodbye with a loss (even though they still haven't played the Saints yet).
Raiders (2-8) at Ravens (5-5): Baltimore-There's a five-way tie for the one available wild card spot in the AFC (the loser of the AFC West is getting in). And it's the Ravens currently holding that spot by virtue of their five conference wins. So, yeah, beating the Bengals (giving them the division tiebreaker over Cincinnati) was big. Now they have a chance to make it two in a row against a Raiders team that actually won last week.
Cardinals (2-8) at Chargers (7-3): Chargers-Losing to the Broncos last week ended up having minimal impact on the Chargers since the Chiefs also lost. And they've got a two-game lead on that five-way tie for the other wild card, so their playoff spot still looks pretty secure, even with a tough stretch coming up (Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Kansas City, Seattle). That makes beating a woeful Cardinals team even more important, though. Can't slip up when you know for a fact Kansas City can't win this week. Especially when you're playing a team like Arizona.
Steelers (7-2-1) at Broncos (4-6): Pittsburgh-I'm not sure which was more impressive. The Steelers' systematic destruction of Carolina in Week 10 or last week, when they won a game they had no business winning against a Jaguars team that's been a thorn in their sides? Either way, for all this talk about Saints, Chiefs and Rams, we may need to include Pittsburgh in that discussion. Especially now that the Le'Veon Bell distraction is gone. Look out for the Steelers down the stretch!
Dolphins (5-5) at Colts (5-5): Miami-Two of the five 5-5 AFC teams square off in Indianapolis. And the Colts are one of the hottest teams in the league, too, which is what's gotten them into this discussion. They've won four straight since a loss to the Jets dropped them to 1-5. The Dolphins have been kinda going the other way--just 2-5 since a 3-0 start. All signs point to a Colts win. But, for some reason, I'm taking Miami.
Packers (4-5-1) at Vikings (5-4-1): Green Bay-If they weren't already in crisis mode, the Packers definitely should be after their Thursday night loss in Seattle last week (while I was miserable and stranded during a snowstorm!). And if not for a late rally in their first meeting with Minnesota, they'd be 4-6 instead of 4-5-1. As it turns out, that tie is what has Minnesota in the playoffs right now (they have a half-game lead on Dallas and Seattle). The Vikings go to New England next week, so they can't really afford a loss. But for the Packers, it's an absolute must-win. And we all know how Aaron Rodgers performs in must-win games.
Titans (5-5) at Texans (7-3): Houston-Once upon a time, the Houston Texans were 0-3 and had just lost to the Giants. Since then, they've rattled off seven straight and taken a two-game lead in the AFC South. The Titans, meanwhile, are confusing. They have that great comeback against Dallas and beat New England, then get their butts kicked in Indianapolis. They're still in the wild card hunt, though. And we've seen how they play on Monday nights. Problem is, there's no stopping this Texans train right now. Make it eight straight as they start their three-game homestand with a win.
BONUS PICK -- Grey Cup -- Stampeders vs. RedBlacks: Calgary-And, finally, as per tradition, making a special bonus pick for the Grey Cup. Will the third time be the charm for Calgary, which has lost the Grey Cup in each of the last two years? I'm saying yes. This year's game is in Edmonton, so they'll have the crowd support. And they're the best team in the league. They win their first Grey Cup since 2014.
Last Week: 6-7
Overall: 101-58-2
What's ironic about Kansas City and the Rams being the two teams with the Thanksgiving bye is that they're both the No. 1 seed in their respective conferences right now. The loss really has very little impact on the Chiefs. It doesn't affect their tiebreakers at all, and Pittsburgh's tie means they can't be tied with the Steelers to begin with. For the Rams, though, things are interesting. They're No. 1 right now, but if the Saints win on Thanksgiving night, they drop to No. 2 behind New Orleans.
We've actually got three of the other six first-place teams playing on Thanksgiving, one in each game. And the middle game is a battle for first place in the NFC East. So, yeah, we've got a good Thanksgiving slate this year (even if the AFC is shut out of the holiday again for no good reason).
Bears (7-3) at Lions (4-6): Chicago-Alright, I'll admit it. The Bears are for real. And now they'll have a chance to make it five in a row by beating the Lions for the second time in 11 days. (Talk about quirky scheduling!) Detroit played New England at home this year, which made the Patriots seem like a natural choice for the Lions' Thanksgiving opponent. They end up going against a first-place team anyway.
Redskins (6-4) at Cowboys (5-5): Dallas-Alex Smith's injury couldn't have happened at a worse time for the Redskins. He's a big reason why Washington's in first place. Now they have to try and stay there without him. And they have a short week to get ready for a surging Dallas team that seemed out of it just two weeks ago. But a win, which would be their third straight, incredibly would move the Cowboys into first place.
Falcons (4-6) at Saints (9-1): New Orleans-The NFL sure nailed it with this year's Thanksgiving night game, too. It's a rivalry game, but it also features the team many consider to be the best in the league (I know the Saints beat them, but I still think the Rams are better). What really bothers me about the Saints is how people are going out of their way to say anybody BUT Drew Brees is the MVP. Sorry, it's Brees. And the Saints will breeze to their 10th straight win, as Atlanta's dwindling playoff hopes take another hit.
Jaguars (3-7) at Bills (3-7): Buffalo-Just 10 months ago, this was a playoff game (and that game set the NFL back about 30 years). Which seems hard to believe considering the current state of both teams. One of the most amazing stats to come out of the Monday night game was that the Chiefs and Rams combined for one fewer touchdown in that shootout than the Bills have scored all season in 10 games. I can't really say much about Jacksonville's offense, either. This game will be as awful as the one in January. Except the result will be different.
Browns (3-6-1) at Bengals (5-5): Cleveland-Things haven't been going well for the Bengals over the past month or so. They started 4-1. Now they're 5-5. Yet they were somehow clinging to a playoff spot until their loss in Baltimore last week. Things haven't exactly been great for the Browns, either. Cleveland had a great September (by their standards) before stumbling through a few bad efforts in a row. I think they got it back in their last game against Atlanta, though. Either way, one of them's gotta win.
Patriots (7-3) at Jets (3-7): New England-Oh my God! The Patriots are only in third place in the AFC! The sky must be falling! Once again the overreacting to a New England loss has been excessive. They still have a two-game division lead after that incredibly weird entire-AFC East bye week. And the Jets are the perfect post-bye opponent. You know they'll be ready. And it probably won't be pretty.
Giants (3-7) at Eagles (4-6): Philadelphia-Believe it or not, the defending champs are still in the hunt in the NFC East. This despite having a 4-6 record and being the victims of an absolute beat down in New Orleans. The Giants, meanwhile, are on...wait for it...a winning streak! Alas, the Giants' opponents were the 49ers and the Bucs, and they barely beat both of them. Beating Philadelphia is a much different proposition. As evidence by their Thursday night game at the Meadowlands earlier this season.
49ers (2-8) at Buccaneers (3-7): San Francisco-Remember when Tampa Bay was basically scoring at will early in the season? That's sure changed, huh? Well, let me rephrase. The Bucs can still score. But they have real issues preventing points. San Francisco, meanwhile, can do either. They can lose a shootout or they can lose 14-10. Either way, one of the Giants' last two victims has to win this game. Not that it matters much in the long run.
Seahawks (5-5) at Panthers (6-4): Carolina-With this week's three best NFC games all on Thanksgiving, this one ends up being FOX's marquee game on Sunday. It's an important one for wild card positioning, though. Carolina currently holds the top wild card spot, but a loss here drops them behind Seattle and gives the Seahawks the tiebreaker. We've all been working under the assumption that the NFC South is getting two playoff teams. But that's not necessarily the case if the Panthers lose this one. And they'll already know the Saints' result, too. So if New Orleans wins, they can kiss the division goodbye with a loss (even though they still haven't played the Saints yet).
Raiders (2-8) at Ravens (5-5): Baltimore-There's a five-way tie for the one available wild card spot in the AFC (the loser of the AFC West is getting in). And it's the Ravens currently holding that spot by virtue of their five conference wins. So, yeah, beating the Bengals (giving them the division tiebreaker over Cincinnati) was big. Now they have a chance to make it two in a row against a Raiders team that actually won last week.
Cardinals (2-8) at Chargers (7-3): Chargers-Losing to the Broncos last week ended up having minimal impact on the Chargers since the Chiefs also lost. And they've got a two-game lead on that five-way tie for the other wild card, so their playoff spot still looks pretty secure, even with a tough stretch coming up (Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Kansas City, Seattle). That makes beating a woeful Cardinals team even more important, though. Can't slip up when you know for a fact Kansas City can't win this week. Especially when you're playing a team like Arizona.
Steelers (7-2-1) at Broncos (4-6): Pittsburgh-I'm not sure which was more impressive. The Steelers' systematic destruction of Carolina in Week 10 or last week, when they won a game they had no business winning against a Jaguars team that's been a thorn in their sides? Either way, for all this talk about Saints, Chiefs and Rams, we may need to include Pittsburgh in that discussion. Especially now that the Le'Veon Bell distraction is gone. Look out for the Steelers down the stretch!
Dolphins (5-5) at Colts (5-5): Miami-Two of the five 5-5 AFC teams square off in Indianapolis. And the Colts are one of the hottest teams in the league, too, which is what's gotten them into this discussion. They've won four straight since a loss to the Jets dropped them to 1-5. The Dolphins have been kinda going the other way--just 2-5 since a 3-0 start. All signs point to a Colts win. But, for some reason, I'm taking Miami.
Packers (4-5-1) at Vikings (5-4-1): Green Bay-If they weren't already in crisis mode, the Packers definitely should be after their Thursday night loss in Seattle last week (while I was miserable and stranded during a snowstorm!). And if not for a late rally in their first meeting with Minnesota, they'd be 4-6 instead of 4-5-1. As it turns out, that tie is what has Minnesota in the playoffs right now (they have a half-game lead on Dallas and Seattle). The Vikings go to New England next week, so they can't really afford a loss. But for the Packers, it's an absolute must-win. And we all know how Aaron Rodgers performs in must-win games.
Titans (5-5) at Texans (7-3): Houston-Once upon a time, the Houston Texans were 0-3 and had just lost to the Giants. Since then, they've rattled off seven straight and taken a two-game lead in the AFC South. The Titans, meanwhile, are confusing. They have that great comeback against Dallas and beat New England, then get their butts kicked in Indianapolis. They're still in the wild card hunt, though. And we've seen how they play on Monday nights. Problem is, there's no stopping this Texans train right now. Make it eight straight as they start their three-game homestand with a win.
BONUS PICK -- Grey Cup -- Stampeders vs. RedBlacks: Calgary-And, finally, as per tradition, making a special bonus pick for the Grey Cup. Will the third time be the charm for Calgary, which has lost the Grey Cup in each of the last two years? I'm saying yes. This year's game is in Edmonton, so they'll have the crowd support. And they're the best team in the league. They win their first Grey Cup since 2014.
Last Week: 6-7
Overall: 101-58-2
Monday, November 19, 2018
Social Media Killed the Olympic Bid
Oh-a-oh
You were the first one
Oh-a-oh
You were the last one
Video killed the radio star
Video killed the radio star
Video has long since killed the radio star. But that classic song by The Buggles can easily be adapted to social media's impact on Olympic bids over the last two winter bidding cycles. Calgary made official today what was determined last week--they're withdrawing their 2026 Winter Olympic bid after failing a public referendum. Yet another Olympic bid that died because it lacked public support.
So, in Calgary's honor, I'm going to amend the lyrics:
Oh-a-oh
You're not the first one
Oh-a-oh
You're not the last one
Social media killed the Olympic bid
Social media killed the Olympic bid
Now, withdrawing the bid was probably a blessing in disguise for Calgary. The IOC hasn't exactly been subtle about its preference for a European host in 2026. Just like they wouldn't be opposed to an American host in 2030. Both of which were working against Calgary. Plus, Canada is co-hosting the 2026 World Cup, which will require some money. So, they basically folded a losing hand before becoming pot committed.
Make no mistake, though, Calgary's organizers were content to stay in the pot and play that losing hand until the opposition became too vocal to ignore. So, just like so many other Olympic bids in recent memory, it went ahead to the public vote that was bound to fail. I don't even remember the last time a proposed Olympic bid survived past a public vote, and even the IOC acknowledged that result was inevitable.
Why was that result inevitable? For the same reason it was inevitable in Boston. And Oslo. And Switzerland. And Austria. Because, thanks to social media, the opponents of Olympic bids have a platform to push their anti-Olympic agenda and drum up their own support. The reasons why they're so opposed to these Olympic bids aren't even really that relevant. The point is it's a lot easier for an opposition group to become an opposition movement in this day and age. And that seems unlikely to change anytime soon.
Local opposition to Olympic bids is nothing new. Denver was awarded the 1976 Winter Games in 1970, only to give them back to the IOC in 1972 when the Colorado State Legislature refused to fund them (Denver 1976 had a lot more problems than that, BTW). While that's the only example of a city deciding after the fact that it didn't want the Olympics, there's always that group of unhappy residents who don't like the idea of the Olympics in their town.
You'll never get 100 percent of voters in any city to agree on anything, and hosting the Olympics is no exception. Some might love the idea and be happy about the economic growth it'll spark. While the other side will look at the cost and ask whether or not it's worth it. And the politicians are usually stuck in the middle. Because they ultimately serve their constituents, so they have to do what the voters want or risk not being reelected. Which usually means deciding to drop an Olympic bid that they might personally support.
The biggest difference between now and then, though, is social media. Social media gives these opposition groups a platform. Even if they start out as a minority, they're a vocal one. And their mission is to get enough people against the idea of hosting an Olympics that the government has no choice but to put it to a vote (and we all know how those votes go). The reasons, I'll reiterate, don't matter. The point is social media gives these groups a chance to make their point, gather support and, ultimately, achieve their goal of seeing the Olympics take place somewhere else.
This isn't going to change, so the IOC and any potential bid cities need to get their message across, too. People don't care about the long-term benefits or the infrastructure improvements that the Olympics can bring. They often only see the price tag (although the $51 billion from Sochi is an incredibly deceiving number). And they'd rather see their taxes go to something other than a two-week party seven years away (which is completely understandable). Meanwhile, the politicians know the Olympics can be the impetus for needed public works projects, but how hard can they push it when they might not even still be in office once those Olympics come around?
Which means it's on the organizers. The opposition groups are successful because they work on fear. They make people think about all the negative things associated with hosting the Olympics. So the organizers need to find a way to convince people that the Olympics are worthwhile. Look at what happened in Salt Lake City, the perfect Winter Games! Or, Exhibits A and B of the Olympics' lasting benefit to the host city--Barcelona and Sydney.
Even with all this in mind (and all the issues the IOC has faced over the past five-or-so years), there are still plenty of cities willing to host the Olympics. Countries are lining up to get in on the 2032 Summer Games. And you can pretty much guarantee that opposition groups will pop up in those cities shortly after the bids are officially announced (if they haven't been already).
Things just become magnified when it comes to the Winter Olympics, which are limited in where they can be held to begin with. So, it makes the IOC look like it's in crisis mode. Four cities withdrew from the 2022 bidding, leaving just two for the final vote. Ditto for 2024. Just Paris and LA, which led to the historic dual-awarding. Now there's only two left in a 2026 race that started with five, both of which are facing problems of their own.
Rest assured, however, that the Winter Olympics aren't going anywhere. The 2026 edition will take place. And it'll be in either Milan or Stockholm. They won't lose both remaining candidates and have to make an emergency call to another city like they did with Innsbruck 50 years earlier.
Then, with no host city election until 2023 after they decide between Milan and Stockholm, they'll have four years to get it right. They'll have four years to change their approach and find a way to get a different message across. Hosting the Olympics doesn't have to be a bad thing. Not if you do it right. And it doesn't have to cost a fortune, either (which Calgary wouldn't have).
We've entered a new normal. It's gonna be like pulling teeth for the IOC to find willing and capable Olympic hosts (especially Winter Olympic hosts) in the age of anti-Olympic social media campaigns. Campaigns that are all negative until the Games themselves actually start. Then the Olympic Spirit takes over. Just like it always does.
You were the first one
Oh-a-oh
You were the last one
Video killed the radio star
Video killed the radio star
Video has long since killed the radio star. But that classic song by The Buggles can easily be adapted to social media's impact on Olympic bids over the last two winter bidding cycles. Calgary made official today what was determined last week--they're withdrawing their 2026 Winter Olympic bid after failing a public referendum. Yet another Olympic bid that died because it lacked public support.
So, in Calgary's honor, I'm going to amend the lyrics:
Oh-a-oh
You're not the first one
Oh-a-oh
You're not the last one
Social media killed the Olympic bid
Social media killed the Olympic bid
Now, withdrawing the bid was probably a blessing in disguise for Calgary. The IOC hasn't exactly been subtle about its preference for a European host in 2026. Just like they wouldn't be opposed to an American host in 2030. Both of which were working against Calgary. Plus, Canada is co-hosting the 2026 World Cup, which will require some money. So, they basically folded a losing hand before becoming pot committed.
Make no mistake, though, Calgary's organizers were content to stay in the pot and play that losing hand until the opposition became too vocal to ignore. So, just like so many other Olympic bids in recent memory, it went ahead to the public vote that was bound to fail. I don't even remember the last time a proposed Olympic bid survived past a public vote, and even the IOC acknowledged that result was inevitable.
Why was that result inevitable? For the same reason it was inevitable in Boston. And Oslo. And Switzerland. And Austria. Because, thanks to social media, the opponents of Olympic bids have a platform to push their anti-Olympic agenda and drum up their own support. The reasons why they're so opposed to these Olympic bids aren't even really that relevant. The point is it's a lot easier for an opposition group to become an opposition movement in this day and age. And that seems unlikely to change anytime soon.
Local opposition to Olympic bids is nothing new. Denver was awarded the 1976 Winter Games in 1970, only to give them back to the IOC in 1972 when the Colorado State Legislature refused to fund them (Denver 1976 had a lot more problems than that, BTW). While that's the only example of a city deciding after the fact that it didn't want the Olympics, there's always that group of unhappy residents who don't like the idea of the Olympics in their town.
You'll never get 100 percent of voters in any city to agree on anything, and hosting the Olympics is no exception. Some might love the idea and be happy about the economic growth it'll spark. While the other side will look at the cost and ask whether or not it's worth it. And the politicians are usually stuck in the middle. Because they ultimately serve their constituents, so they have to do what the voters want or risk not being reelected. Which usually means deciding to drop an Olympic bid that they might personally support.
The biggest difference between now and then, though, is social media. Social media gives these opposition groups a platform. Even if they start out as a minority, they're a vocal one. And their mission is to get enough people against the idea of hosting an Olympics that the government has no choice but to put it to a vote (and we all know how those votes go). The reasons, I'll reiterate, don't matter. The point is social media gives these groups a chance to make their point, gather support and, ultimately, achieve their goal of seeing the Olympics take place somewhere else.
This isn't going to change, so the IOC and any potential bid cities need to get their message across, too. People don't care about the long-term benefits or the infrastructure improvements that the Olympics can bring. They often only see the price tag (although the $51 billion from Sochi is an incredibly deceiving number). And they'd rather see their taxes go to something other than a two-week party seven years away (which is completely understandable). Meanwhile, the politicians know the Olympics can be the impetus for needed public works projects, but how hard can they push it when they might not even still be in office once those Olympics come around?
Which means it's on the organizers. The opposition groups are successful because they work on fear. They make people think about all the negative things associated with hosting the Olympics. So the organizers need to find a way to convince people that the Olympics are worthwhile. Look at what happened in Salt Lake City, the perfect Winter Games! Or, Exhibits A and B of the Olympics' lasting benefit to the host city--Barcelona and Sydney.
Even with all this in mind (and all the issues the IOC has faced over the past five-or-so years), there are still plenty of cities willing to host the Olympics. Countries are lining up to get in on the 2032 Summer Games. And you can pretty much guarantee that opposition groups will pop up in those cities shortly after the bids are officially announced (if they haven't been already).
Things just become magnified when it comes to the Winter Olympics, which are limited in where they can be held to begin with. So, it makes the IOC look like it's in crisis mode. Four cities withdrew from the 2022 bidding, leaving just two for the final vote. Ditto for 2024. Just Paris and LA, which led to the historic dual-awarding. Now there's only two left in a 2026 race that started with five, both of which are facing problems of their own.
Rest assured, however, that the Winter Olympics aren't going anywhere. The 2026 edition will take place. And it'll be in either Milan or Stockholm. They won't lose both remaining candidates and have to make an emergency call to another city like they did with Innsbruck 50 years earlier.
Then, with no host city election until 2023 after they decide between Milan and Stockholm, they'll have four years to get it right. They'll have four years to change their approach and find a way to get a different message across. Hosting the Olympics doesn't have to be a bad thing. Not if you do it right. And it doesn't have to cost a fortune, either (which Calgary wouldn't have).
We've entered a new normal. It's gonna be like pulling teeth for the IOC to find willing and capable Olympic hosts (especially Winter Olympic hosts) in the age of anti-Olympic social media campaigns. Campaigns that are all negative until the Games themselves actually start. Then the Olympic Spirit takes over. Just like it always does.
Sunday, November 18, 2018
Week 11, NFL 2018
Why is the entire AFC East off this week? I remember when they first started doing byes, that's the way they did it. But now they're so random and arbitrary that seeing an entire division sitting the week out is just odd. The 49ers and Browns are off this week, too, giving their fans a chance to enjoy their Thanksgivings and be thankful that they're getting a week off from watching terrible football.
Anyway, Thanksgiving is the traditional start of the stretch run. This is when we're gonna start seeing playoff standings graphics on every game, and the Rams even had a chance to clinch the NFC West this week before the Seahawks won on Thursday night (which completely destroyed Green Bay's postseason chances). We'll see how much that playoff picture changes (for everyone except the AFC East) come Monday night.
Thursday Night: Seattle (Win)
Cowboys (4-5) at Falcons (4-5): Dallas-Dallas might've salvaged its entire season last Sunday night in Philadelphia. Now they find themselves in another game where the loser might effectively be out. I'd say Atlanta needs it a little bit more, seeing as they share a division with the Saints and Panthers. But when the Cowboys are desperate, they tend to play their best. It's a short week for both of them, and they both play first-place archrivals on Thanksgiving, amping up the pressure even more in this one.
Panthers (6-3) at Lions (3-6): Carolina-It's been 10 days since that massacre in Pittsburgh, which has to be considered rock bottom for the Panthers this season. It also knocked them two games behind the Saints. They don't meet New Orleans until Week 15, though, so they still have a chance in the NFC South. A loss to the Lions certainly won't help them in that cause, though. Especially a reeling Detroit team that hasn't won since Week 7.
Titans (5-4) at Colts (4-5): Tennessee-Well, the Titans sure found a way to make things interesting, didn't they? New England's three losses this season are to Jacksonville, Detroit and Tennessee. I'm not entirely sure what that says, but Tennessee's win last week sure muddled up the AFC playoff picture. They're right back in the thick of it, and they'll actually take over first place if they win and the Texans lose. Meanwhile, if they lose, they fall out of playoff position into third place in the division. Huge game for the Titans.
Buccaneers (3-6) at Giants (2-7): Giants-Is it possible the Giants might actually win two games in a row? After resembling an NFL football team in San Francisco on Monday night, they've got another softer opponent this week in Tampa Bay. Jason Pierre-Paul is amped up for his return to New York. Are the rest of the Bucs, though? It sure seems like a long time ago when Tampa Bay was 2-0 and putting up video game numbers on offense. Call me crazy, but I've got a feeling the team that hasn't won consecutive games since 2016 just might do it.
Texans (6-3) at Redskins (6-3): Washington-Two surprise first-place teams that both feel like they have something to prove. Neither one has actually played a who's who of the NFL so far this season, but, as they say, you play who's on your schedule. And this is a real test for both of them. Houston has come a long way since starting 0-3 (and losing to the Giants). They've won six in a row and are one of the hottest teams in the league. I think that stops here, though.
Steelers (6-2-1) at Jaguars (3-6): Pittsburgh-This was originally supposed to be the Sunday night game, but they flexed it out because Jacksonville has gone back to being Jacksonville after last year's random run to the AFC Championship Game. A run that included a victory over Pittsburgh in that Divisional round shootout. Oh, how times have changed! The Steelers are back to being the Steelers after that rocky start, as evidence by that absolute butt-kicking they gave a good Panthers team last week. They should get some measure of revenge this week and improve their playoff standing in the process.
Bengals (5-4) at Ravens (4-5): Cincinnati-Both of these teams are getting desperate. The Bengals are clinging to the one available wild card spot, but that grip is becoming more and more perilous. And last week's humiliation at the hands of the Saints cost their defensive coordinator his job. Both of these coaching staffs may be looking for new jobs at the end of the season. Frankly, they both need it. As for who wins this week, the Bengals are still the better team. And all of their losses over the last month have been against playoff teams, which is something to keep in mind.
Raiders (1-8) at Cardinals (2-7): Arizona-Arizona is undefeated against the 49ers and winless against the rest of the NFL. And the 49ers are actually the "good" team in the Bay Area. Describing the Raiders as "bad" is generous, too. They're the worst team in the league. This is one of the few remaining games on their schedule that looks winnable. Problem is the Cardinals are thinking the exact same thing. Arizona stays undefeated against the Bay Area. Unfortunately, they don't have any games against Bay Area opponents after this.
Broncos (3-6) at Chargers (7-2): Chargers-At this point, all the Chargers can do is keep winning and hope the Chiefs drop one along the way (perhaps against the Rams on Monday night). Worst case, they know that'll assure them of at least a wild card. The Broncos will be out to spoil the party, and I think would have a good shot at doing so if this game were in Denver. But, since it's in SoCal, a place the Chargers haven't been since Week 5, I like Phillip Rivers and Co. to keep rolling.
Eagles (4-5) at Saints (8-1): New Orleans-A number of NFL Power Rankings have the Saints at No. 1. Either way, I think the winner of Monday night's showdown takes over that No. 1 spot after this week is all said and done, but that game obviously has some big implications for the Saints, who currently hold the top spot in the NFC. They haven't lost since Week 1, mind you. As for the defending champs, if they don't win this one, they might as well start looking towards 2019. Problem is Drew Brees has a receiver now, even if it is Brandon Marshall. The New Orleans offense will continue to put points on the board and prove way too much for the Eagles to handle, as they become the third team to reach nine wins this season.
Vikings (5-3-1) at Bears (6-3): Minnesota-They flexed this battle for first place in the NFC North into Sunday night. It's the start of a tough stretch for the Vikings, who have Green Bay, at New England, at Seattle as their next three games after this one. We also finally get to see how the Bears stack up against a good team. Chicago's 6-3 and in first place, but hasn't beaten a team that currently has a winning record. The Vikings are currently in a wild card position, but can flip the division standings with a win. This is the type of game Minnesota has proven it can win over the past few seasons. Let's see if the Bears are up to the task heading into their Thanksgiving matchup in Detroit.
Chiefs (9-1) at Rams (9-1): Rams-The NFL's Game of the Year wasn't even going to take place in this country at first. But the field at Azteca is unplayable and, instead of holding off on a decision until later in the week, they made the call to relocate the game from Mexico City to the LA Coliseum shortly after the players first brought up their concerns on Tuesday. Which is a huge advantage for the Rams, and not just for the obvious reason. The Chiefs play in Denver every year, so they're used to playing at altitude, which the Rams aren't. There's only so much practicing you can do to simulate those type of conditions. So I thought the Chiefs clearly had the advantage in Mexico. In LA, though, give me the home team.
This Week: 1-0
Last Week: 9-5
Overall: 96-51-2
Anyway, Thanksgiving is the traditional start of the stretch run. This is when we're gonna start seeing playoff standings graphics on every game, and the Rams even had a chance to clinch the NFC West this week before the Seahawks won on Thursday night (which completely destroyed Green Bay's postseason chances). We'll see how much that playoff picture changes (for everyone except the AFC East) come Monday night.
Thursday Night: Seattle (Win)
Cowboys (4-5) at Falcons (4-5): Dallas-Dallas might've salvaged its entire season last Sunday night in Philadelphia. Now they find themselves in another game where the loser might effectively be out. I'd say Atlanta needs it a little bit more, seeing as they share a division with the Saints and Panthers. But when the Cowboys are desperate, they tend to play their best. It's a short week for both of them, and they both play first-place archrivals on Thanksgiving, amping up the pressure even more in this one.
Panthers (6-3) at Lions (3-6): Carolina-It's been 10 days since that massacre in Pittsburgh, which has to be considered rock bottom for the Panthers this season. It also knocked them two games behind the Saints. They don't meet New Orleans until Week 15, though, so they still have a chance in the NFC South. A loss to the Lions certainly won't help them in that cause, though. Especially a reeling Detroit team that hasn't won since Week 7.
Titans (5-4) at Colts (4-5): Tennessee-Well, the Titans sure found a way to make things interesting, didn't they? New England's three losses this season are to Jacksonville, Detroit and Tennessee. I'm not entirely sure what that says, but Tennessee's win last week sure muddled up the AFC playoff picture. They're right back in the thick of it, and they'll actually take over first place if they win and the Texans lose. Meanwhile, if they lose, they fall out of playoff position into third place in the division. Huge game for the Titans.
Buccaneers (3-6) at Giants (2-7): Giants-Is it possible the Giants might actually win two games in a row? After resembling an NFL football team in San Francisco on Monday night, they've got another softer opponent this week in Tampa Bay. Jason Pierre-Paul is amped up for his return to New York. Are the rest of the Bucs, though? It sure seems like a long time ago when Tampa Bay was 2-0 and putting up video game numbers on offense. Call me crazy, but I've got a feeling the team that hasn't won consecutive games since 2016 just might do it.
Texans (6-3) at Redskins (6-3): Washington-Two surprise first-place teams that both feel like they have something to prove. Neither one has actually played a who's who of the NFL so far this season, but, as they say, you play who's on your schedule. And this is a real test for both of them. Houston has come a long way since starting 0-3 (and losing to the Giants). They've won six in a row and are one of the hottest teams in the league. I think that stops here, though.
Steelers (6-2-1) at Jaguars (3-6): Pittsburgh-This was originally supposed to be the Sunday night game, but they flexed it out because Jacksonville has gone back to being Jacksonville after last year's random run to the AFC Championship Game. A run that included a victory over Pittsburgh in that Divisional round shootout. Oh, how times have changed! The Steelers are back to being the Steelers after that rocky start, as evidence by that absolute butt-kicking they gave a good Panthers team last week. They should get some measure of revenge this week and improve their playoff standing in the process.
Bengals (5-4) at Ravens (4-5): Cincinnati-Both of these teams are getting desperate. The Bengals are clinging to the one available wild card spot, but that grip is becoming more and more perilous. And last week's humiliation at the hands of the Saints cost their defensive coordinator his job. Both of these coaching staffs may be looking for new jobs at the end of the season. Frankly, they both need it. As for who wins this week, the Bengals are still the better team. And all of their losses over the last month have been against playoff teams, which is something to keep in mind.
Raiders (1-8) at Cardinals (2-7): Arizona-Arizona is undefeated against the 49ers and winless against the rest of the NFL. And the 49ers are actually the "good" team in the Bay Area. Describing the Raiders as "bad" is generous, too. They're the worst team in the league. This is one of the few remaining games on their schedule that looks winnable. Problem is the Cardinals are thinking the exact same thing. Arizona stays undefeated against the Bay Area. Unfortunately, they don't have any games against Bay Area opponents after this.
Broncos (3-6) at Chargers (7-2): Chargers-At this point, all the Chargers can do is keep winning and hope the Chiefs drop one along the way (perhaps against the Rams on Monday night). Worst case, they know that'll assure them of at least a wild card. The Broncos will be out to spoil the party, and I think would have a good shot at doing so if this game were in Denver. But, since it's in SoCal, a place the Chargers haven't been since Week 5, I like Phillip Rivers and Co. to keep rolling.
Eagles (4-5) at Saints (8-1): New Orleans-A number of NFL Power Rankings have the Saints at No. 1. Either way, I think the winner of Monday night's showdown takes over that No. 1 spot after this week is all said and done, but that game obviously has some big implications for the Saints, who currently hold the top spot in the NFC. They haven't lost since Week 1, mind you. As for the defending champs, if they don't win this one, they might as well start looking towards 2019. Problem is Drew Brees has a receiver now, even if it is Brandon Marshall. The New Orleans offense will continue to put points on the board and prove way too much for the Eagles to handle, as they become the third team to reach nine wins this season.
Vikings (5-3-1) at Bears (6-3): Minnesota-They flexed this battle for first place in the NFC North into Sunday night. It's the start of a tough stretch for the Vikings, who have Green Bay, at New England, at Seattle as their next three games after this one. We also finally get to see how the Bears stack up against a good team. Chicago's 6-3 and in first place, but hasn't beaten a team that currently has a winning record. The Vikings are currently in a wild card position, but can flip the division standings with a win. This is the type of game Minnesota has proven it can win over the past few seasons. Let's see if the Bears are up to the task heading into their Thanksgiving matchup in Detroit.
Chiefs (9-1) at Rams (9-1): Rams-The NFL's Game of the Year wasn't even going to take place in this country at first. But the field at Azteca is unplayable and, instead of holding off on a decision until later in the week, they made the call to relocate the game from Mexico City to the LA Coliseum shortly after the players first brought up their concerns on Tuesday. Which is a huge advantage for the Rams, and not just for the obvious reason. The Chiefs play in Denver every year, so they're used to playing at altitude, which the Rams aren't. There's only so much practicing you can do to simulate those type of conditions. So I thought the Chiefs clearly had the advantage in Mexico. In LA, though, give me the home team.
This Week: 1-0
Last Week: 9-5
Overall: 96-51-2
Thursday, November 15, 2018
MLB Awards - The MVPs
So...it turns out that NL Cy Young race wasn't that close at all, huh? Not that deGrom wasn't a deserving winner. Now we move on to the final awards of the week--the AL and NL MVP. And, considering how NL Cy Young turned out to not be a race at all, I have a feeling that the MVP races won't be either. Mookie Betts and Christian Yelich are going to win. And they both should.
Let's start in the AL, where Mike Trout is among the three finalists because he's Mike Trout and the writers are obsessed with him. Did Trout have a great year? No! Did he help the Angels actually do anything worthwhile? No! All he did was put up the exact same numbers he puts up every year. Which isn't to say he isn't great. Quite the contrary. He's the best player in the game. But just because he's the best player in the game doesn't mean you automatically have to vote for him for MVP every year. Especially in a year where it was clear he was NOT the MVP. In fact, I didn't even have him in the top three. I had him fifth.
Which is why it drove me absolutely insane that "experts" were making their ridiculous Mike Trout for MVP arguments! Are their man crushes on Mike Trout so big that they were completely oblivious to what was actually going on in the American League all season? Because there were two MVP candidates in Boston, two in Cleveland, and a bunch of other guys elsewhere who had just as valid an MVP case as the WAR poster boy.
But even in that crowded field, one player stands out. Mookie Betts was the engine that made the Red Sox go. And not just because he was a top-of-the-order presence. It was the Gold Glove defense, the speed, the power, and everything else. He did everything! Without Mookie Betts, Boston doesn't win 108 games and maybe doesn't even hold off the Yankees. Being the best player on the best team doesn't necessarily make you the MVP. But in this case, it's pretty clear that Mookie Betts is head-and-shoulders above the rest.
In any other year, we'd be talking about Jose Ramirez as the clear-cut AL MVP. Ramirez is the best player in the game nobody seems to notice. But, like Betts, he had a 30-30 season and, for the second year in a row, seamlessly moved from third base to second at the trade deadline as the Indians won another division title.
Betts and Ramirez weren't even the only MVP candidates on their own team! I'd say the J.D. Martinez signing worked out well for Boston. He and Betts were neck and neck as which Red Sok was actually the front-runner most of the year. And it's crazy that the guy who finished first, first, second in the Triple Crown categories didn't finish in the top three. I don't care if he was a DH!
Like I said, Mike Trout should've been no higher than fifth after the two Red Sox and the two Indians. You could make the argument that Alex Bregman or Matt Chapman or even Giancarlo Stanton should be placed higher than Trout. In fact, here's how my AL MVP rankings break down: 1. Betts, 2. Ramirez, 3. Martinez, 4. Lindor, 5. Trout, 6. Bregman, 7. Chapman, 8. Stanton, 9. Blake Snell, 10. Khris Davis.
Things in the National League, meanwhile, should be just as clear. It's Christian Yelich and everyone else. All Yelich needed was to get out of Miami to turn into a full-fledged star (only in baseball can going from Miami to Milwaukee INCREASE your exposure). And he sure did! Led the league in hitting, third in homers, third in RBIs, and, for good measure, a ridiculous September as the Brewers clinched the division.
Not to take anything away from Nolan Arenado, though. Because if not for Yelich's stretch run, Arenado would finally be getting that first MVP award. I'm still convinced he'll get one someday. Because he's firmly established by now that he's not just the best third baseman in the game, he's one of the best players period. And, for the record, Arenado won the home run crown and finished one RBI shy of the NL lead in that category, too, to go along with his sterling defense.
During the 2016 World Series, I fell in love with Javy Baez. That hasn't changed. And this year he was arguably the best player on a Cubs roster that includes studs Anthony Rizzo and Kris Bryant (although maybe not much longer for Bryant). Anyway, Javy has gone from utility guy to vital middle-of-the-order lineup anchor. When Addison Russell got suspended, Javy moved from second back to his natural position of shortstop and thrived even more. To the tune of 34 home runs and a league-leading 111 RBIs.
What's funny about the MVP is that it really proves how things can change during a six-month-long season. At the All*Star Break, Freddie Freeman seemed to be a front runner. Then, as Matt Carpenter, so did the Cardinals. Then, once St. Louis came back down to Earth, it was Arenado and, finally, Yelich.
The National League also featured a number of players who had solid years for bad teams, which should garner them MVP votes lower down the ballot. Players like Eugenio Suarez and Scooter Gennett of the Reds or Anthony Rendon of the Nationals or Rhys Hoskins of the Phillies, who weren't "bad" like the other two teams, but ended up out of it nonetheless. Or those secondary candidates on playoff teams. There was Trevor Story in Colorado and you could make an argument for three other Brewers (Josh Hader, Jesus Aguilar, Lorenzo Cain).
Let's not forget the NL pitchers, either. Because you're telling me Jacob deGrom and Max Scherzer weren't the most valuable players on their teams this season?! They obviously didn't win since they aren't finalists. But their seasons were definitely among the 10 best in the National League this season, so they're on my ballot.
Speaking of that, here's what I've got for NL MVP. This was actually pretty hard since I easily could've gone all the way to 15 with all the quality candidates out there: 1. Yelich, 2. Arenado, 3. Baez, 4. Freeman, 5. Carpenter, 6. Trevor Story, 7. Hader, 8. Scherzer, 9. deGrom, 10. Eugenio Suarez.
Let's start in the AL, where Mike Trout is among the three finalists because he's Mike Trout and the writers are obsessed with him. Did Trout have a great year? No! Did he help the Angels actually do anything worthwhile? No! All he did was put up the exact same numbers he puts up every year. Which isn't to say he isn't great. Quite the contrary. He's the best player in the game. But just because he's the best player in the game doesn't mean you automatically have to vote for him for MVP every year. Especially in a year where it was clear he was NOT the MVP. In fact, I didn't even have him in the top three. I had him fifth.
Which is why it drove me absolutely insane that "experts" were making their ridiculous Mike Trout for MVP arguments! Are their man crushes on Mike Trout so big that they were completely oblivious to what was actually going on in the American League all season? Because there were two MVP candidates in Boston, two in Cleveland, and a bunch of other guys elsewhere who had just as valid an MVP case as the WAR poster boy.
But even in that crowded field, one player stands out. Mookie Betts was the engine that made the Red Sox go. And not just because he was a top-of-the-order presence. It was the Gold Glove defense, the speed, the power, and everything else. He did everything! Without Mookie Betts, Boston doesn't win 108 games and maybe doesn't even hold off the Yankees. Being the best player on the best team doesn't necessarily make you the MVP. But in this case, it's pretty clear that Mookie Betts is head-and-shoulders above the rest.
In any other year, we'd be talking about Jose Ramirez as the clear-cut AL MVP. Ramirez is the best player in the game nobody seems to notice. But, like Betts, he had a 30-30 season and, for the second year in a row, seamlessly moved from third base to second at the trade deadline as the Indians won another division title.
Betts and Ramirez weren't even the only MVP candidates on their own team! I'd say the J.D. Martinez signing worked out well for Boston. He and Betts were neck and neck as which Red Sok was actually the front-runner most of the year. And it's crazy that the guy who finished first, first, second in the Triple Crown categories didn't finish in the top three. I don't care if he was a DH!
Like I said, Mike Trout should've been no higher than fifth after the two Red Sox and the two Indians. You could make the argument that Alex Bregman or Matt Chapman or even Giancarlo Stanton should be placed higher than Trout. In fact, here's how my AL MVP rankings break down: 1. Betts, 2. Ramirez, 3. Martinez, 4. Lindor, 5. Trout, 6. Bregman, 7. Chapman, 8. Stanton, 9. Blake Snell, 10. Khris Davis.
Things in the National League, meanwhile, should be just as clear. It's Christian Yelich and everyone else. All Yelich needed was to get out of Miami to turn into a full-fledged star (only in baseball can going from Miami to Milwaukee INCREASE your exposure). And he sure did! Led the league in hitting, third in homers, third in RBIs, and, for good measure, a ridiculous September as the Brewers clinched the division.
Not to take anything away from Nolan Arenado, though. Because if not for Yelich's stretch run, Arenado would finally be getting that first MVP award. I'm still convinced he'll get one someday. Because he's firmly established by now that he's not just the best third baseman in the game, he's one of the best players period. And, for the record, Arenado won the home run crown and finished one RBI shy of the NL lead in that category, too, to go along with his sterling defense.
During the 2016 World Series, I fell in love with Javy Baez. That hasn't changed. And this year he was arguably the best player on a Cubs roster that includes studs Anthony Rizzo and Kris Bryant (although maybe not much longer for Bryant). Anyway, Javy has gone from utility guy to vital middle-of-the-order lineup anchor. When Addison Russell got suspended, Javy moved from second back to his natural position of shortstop and thrived even more. To the tune of 34 home runs and a league-leading 111 RBIs.
What's funny about the MVP is that it really proves how things can change during a six-month-long season. At the All*Star Break, Freddie Freeman seemed to be a front runner. Then, as Matt Carpenter, so did the Cardinals. Then, once St. Louis came back down to Earth, it was Arenado and, finally, Yelich.
The National League also featured a number of players who had solid years for bad teams, which should garner them MVP votes lower down the ballot. Players like Eugenio Suarez and Scooter Gennett of the Reds or Anthony Rendon of the Nationals or Rhys Hoskins of the Phillies, who weren't "bad" like the other two teams, but ended up out of it nonetheless. Or those secondary candidates on playoff teams. There was Trevor Story in Colorado and you could make an argument for three other Brewers (Josh Hader, Jesus Aguilar, Lorenzo Cain).
Let's not forget the NL pitchers, either. Because you're telling me Jacob deGrom and Max Scherzer weren't the most valuable players on their teams this season?! They obviously didn't win since they aren't finalists. But their seasons were definitely among the 10 best in the National League this season, so they're on my ballot.
Speaking of that, here's what I've got for NL MVP. This was actually pretty hard since I easily could've gone all the way to 15 with all the quality candidates out there: 1. Yelich, 2. Arenado, 3. Baez, 4. Freeman, 5. Carpenter, 6. Trevor Story, 7. Hader, 8. Scherzer, 9. deGrom, 10. Eugenio Suarez.
Wednesday, November 14, 2018
MLB Awards - The Cy Young
Of the eight awards being given out by the BBWAA this week, the one with the most intrigue is definitely NL Cy Young. For all the talk about Jacob deGrom's wins (or lack thereof) and whether or not they'll cost him in the Cy Young race, we'll finally find out the answer once and for all. Were the writers able to overlook deGrom's win total? Or did Max Scherzer join rare company with his third straight Cy Young?
From all the different articles I've seen and various experts weighing in, I think it was probably pretty easy for the writers to look past the fact that deGrom only won 10 games. Because his other numbers would've made it a slam dunk had he gotten any run support whatsoever. He allowed four runs in a game ONCE all season (in May!), and didn't give up more than two in his last 25 starts. Are there some old school writers who won't be able to vote for a starter that pitched the whole season and only had 10 wins? Perhaps. Which is their prerogative.
That whole "wins don't matter" mentality has really taken off in the last few years. But this isn't a Felix Hernandez-David Price situation. DeGrom's only competition came from guys who were also on non-playoff teams. So it'll ultimately come down to who truly was the best pitcher in the National League this season. And that was Jacob deGrom.
It took me a while to come around on deGrom. I didn't really sway in his direction until September. Because until then, I thought Max Scherzer's third straight Cy Young was pretty much locked up. And it still wouldn't be surprised if he does win. Because he and deGrom were neck-and-neck in so many statistical categories...except wins, where Scherzer tied for the National League lead. And he had that sexy 300 in the strikeouts column.
Aaron Nola of the Phillies also had a strong season, and he probably was the third-best pitcher in the National League this season. If not for the other two, we'd be talking about Nola's year as "historic." He had 17 wins, ranked second in ERA and held opponents under .200, even if his strikeouts were lower than both deGrom and Scherzer.
Cy Young voting goes five deep, and there are plenty of others who are worthy of lower-ballot consideration. Miles Mikolas of the Cardinals didn't have the strikeouts of his competition, and his opponents' batting average was much higher. But! He went 18-4 and emerged as the ace of the Cardinals' staff. Then there's the Brewers' Josh Hader, whose otherworldly numbers in relief probably garnered him some MVP votes, too.
For the first time in this awards season, my top three is different than the writers. DeGrom and Scherzer will go 1-2 in either order. I have deGrom 1, Scherzer 2. But beyond that, who knows? I rounded out my ballot with Hader, Nola and Mikolas.
In the American League, things seem a little more clear cut. Or do they? Because first Justin Verlander was running away with it. Then Chris Sale was. Then, by the end of the season, Blake Snell became the favorite in a lot of people's eyes. And, just like Jacob deGrom, the general feeling about Blake Snell is that he's the likely winner, but by no means a guarantee.
Personally, I get a kick out of the fact that Snell is a leading contender for the AL Cy Young. Because it was his team making all the headlines this season for their idiotic "opener" strategy, yet the only actual starting pitcher on the team is probably going to win the Cy Young! A member of the Rays, the team trying to prove just the opposite, is actually going to show how valuable a No. 1 starter is. Again, I'm expecting MVP votes to come Snell's way after his 21-5 season with a dominant 1.89 ERA (in a division that included two 100-win teams).
Or it might go to Verlander, who's been back to his old self since getting traded to Houston. He pitched like the 2011 AL MVP. He pitched like that guy who dominated the ALCS and World Series last season. He struck out 290 batters, had an ERA of 2.52, and earned 16 wins while anchoring that sensational Astros staff that also included fringe Cy Young candidates Gerrit Cole and Charlie Morton.
Meanwhile Corey Kluber continued to be the model of consistency. Using an analogy that the writers who are obsessed with a certain Angels outfielder can understand, he's like the Mike Trout of pitchers. At the end of the season, you look up, and the numbers match the back of the baseball card. It was no different in 2018. Another 20-win season. Another 200+ strikeouts. Another sub-3.00 ERA. Another Indians playoff appearance.
A healthy Chris Sale sure would've made this race even more interesting. He was the best pitcher in the American League for two months, starting the All*Star Game for the third year in a row, before going down in August and barely pitching down the stretch. It's likely what kept him out of the top three. But, let's not forget, Chris Sale's the one who ended up with a World Series ring after all of the dust was settled.
This was a very top-heavy year in the AL Cy Young race. Because it's really just those four. Luis Severino knocked himself out of contention with his up-and-down second half. James Paxton also faded down the stretch after a tremendous first half. Trevor Bauer, meanwhile, finished second in ERA, but barely threw enough innings to qualify, only went 12-6, and was the second-best pitcher on his own team. Then there's A's closer Blake Treinen, he of the sub-1.00 ERA and 100 strikeouts in just 80.1 innings.
My AL Cy Young rankings are just as close at the top as my NL rankings were. But I'm giving Snell the slight edge over Verlander. Again I deviate from the three finalists. Because I've got Sale at three and Kluber at four, with Treinen getting my fifth-place vote.
Tuesday, November 13, 2018
MLB Awards - The Managers
At the All*Star break, when I named my midseason awards, Alex Cora and Brian Snitker were my choices for Manager of the Midyear. Now that it's time to give out the full-season award, though, I'm not sticking with either one of them. Which isn't to say anything about the job they each did. I just think they were both overtaken by the manager of a team that made an unexpected playoff run.
My initial thought was that whoever won the AL East would be the Manager of the Year. Well, the Red Sox ran away with the division and Alex Cora had essentially the perfect season as a rookie manager. He had the best team in baseball, yes. But also everything he touched was gold, they didn't go into a slump all season, and his handling of the pitching staff (especially in the postseason, which doesn't count for awards) was masterful.
So why don't I think Cora is the AL Manager of the Year anymore? Because the Red Sox were supposed to be good. I'm not suggesting that should disqualify him. But when Oakland makes the playoffs out of nowhere with a payroll of $11, you've gotta think the manager deserves at least some credit for that. Which is why my choice for AL Manager of the Year is now Bob Melvin.
Oakland won 75 games in 2017. This season they won 97, and they were neck-and-neck with the Astros in the AL West until Houston had that ridiculous September. And did I mention they lost like their top three starting pitchers, yet kept winning? All while maintaining one of the lowest payrolls in the Majors. The A's overachieved all season. Which should yield Melvin his third career Manager of the Year Award.
There's also the camp that supports Tampa Bay's Kevin Cash, who led the Rays to a just-as-surprising 90-win campaign. Cash's claim to fame, of course, is his unique "opener" strategy that became Tampa Bay's trademark. Various adjectives were used to describe it, with "revolutionary" and "innovative" among the most common (my adjective of choice is "stupid"). Yet it worked. If it hadn't, they wouldn't have kept doing it all season. Does it have long-term lasting power? Probably not. But it was definitely one of the signature things of the 2018 baseball season. And it's why Kevin Cash deserves to be in the running for AL Manager of the Year.
Cash won't win, though. And he shouldn't. Because the job Melvin did was the best by any American League manager in 2018. Melvin wins, and I don't think it'll be that close. Cora second, Cash third.
Likewise, in the National League, the job Brian Snitker did in Atlanta can't be discounted. The Braves were supposed to be at least a year away. But, behind career years from Freddie Freeman and Nick Markakis and the emergence of Ozzie Albies and NL Rookie of the Year Ronald Acuna, Jr., they arrived ahead of schedule. And their Sepetember run to not just hold off, but pull away from the Phillies, proved that Snitker had the magic touch in 2018.
Which brings me back to the same question I asked in the American League. So, if he's just as deserving as he was in July, why is Brian Snitker no longer my choice for NL Manager of the Year? And the answer to this one is even easier. Because the Milwaukee Brewers ended up with the best record in the National League.
A lot of people deserve credit for the Brewers' success this season. But they wouldn't have set a franchise record for wins, had the best record in the National League, or taken the Dodgers to Game 7 of the NLCS without the work of their manager. Like Kevin Cash, Craig Counsell had little to work with on the starting-pitching front. So he masterfully used his bevy of relievers in a variety of ways. Having Christian Yelich helped, too, but Counsell was able to figure out a lineup that had guys playing out of position all over the place. And, for a while, it seemed like they'd never lose again.
It also felt like the Rockies would never lose again in September, as Bud Black once again proved that he's one of the most underrated managers in baseball. Because we have to stop crediting Coors Field and the thin mountain air anytime the Rockies are competitive. This team is legit good, as evidence by their back-to-back playoff appearances. Remarkably, Colorado ended up in a dead-heat with the Dodgers in the NL West, with only a loss in Game 163 coming between the Rockies and their first division title.
This NL Manager of the Year one is going to be a tight one. Because it's not just the three finalists who you could make a legitimate argument for. Had the Phillies not collapsed in September, Gabe Kapler would definitely be in the discussion. Ditto about Torey Lovullo in Arizona and Mike Shildt, who got the Cardinals into playoff contention (and kept them there!) after taking over when Mike Matheny was fired. Even Dave Roberts probably got a vote or two (even if he outmanaged himself over and over again in the World Series).
The three finalists are probably the right three, though. Personally, I'd rank them 1-Counsell, 2-Snitker, 3-Black, but I really can see them ending up in any order. Although, I would be surprised if Craig Counsell isn't the winner. Those 95 wins and a division title over the Cubs are too much to ignore.
My initial thought was that whoever won the AL East would be the Manager of the Year. Well, the Red Sox ran away with the division and Alex Cora had essentially the perfect season as a rookie manager. He had the best team in baseball, yes. But also everything he touched was gold, they didn't go into a slump all season, and his handling of the pitching staff (especially in the postseason, which doesn't count for awards) was masterful.
So why don't I think Cora is the AL Manager of the Year anymore? Because the Red Sox were supposed to be good. I'm not suggesting that should disqualify him. But when Oakland makes the playoffs out of nowhere with a payroll of $11, you've gotta think the manager deserves at least some credit for that. Which is why my choice for AL Manager of the Year is now Bob Melvin.
Oakland won 75 games in 2017. This season they won 97, and they were neck-and-neck with the Astros in the AL West until Houston had that ridiculous September. And did I mention they lost like their top three starting pitchers, yet kept winning? All while maintaining one of the lowest payrolls in the Majors. The A's overachieved all season. Which should yield Melvin his third career Manager of the Year Award.
There's also the camp that supports Tampa Bay's Kevin Cash, who led the Rays to a just-as-surprising 90-win campaign. Cash's claim to fame, of course, is his unique "opener" strategy that became Tampa Bay's trademark. Various adjectives were used to describe it, with "revolutionary" and "innovative" among the most common (my adjective of choice is "stupid"). Yet it worked. If it hadn't, they wouldn't have kept doing it all season. Does it have long-term lasting power? Probably not. But it was definitely one of the signature things of the 2018 baseball season. And it's why Kevin Cash deserves to be in the running for AL Manager of the Year.
Cash won't win, though. And he shouldn't. Because the job Melvin did was the best by any American League manager in 2018. Melvin wins, and I don't think it'll be that close. Cora second, Cash third.
Likewise, in the National League, the job Brian Snitker did in Atlanta can't be discounted. The Braves were supposed to be at least a year away. But, behind career years from Freddie Freeman and Nick Markakis and the emergence of Ozzie Albies and NL Rookie of the Year Ronald Acuna, Jr., they arrived ahead of schedule. And their Sepetember run to not just hold off, but pull away from the Phillies, proved that Snitker had the magic touch in 2018.
Which brings me back to the same question I asked in the American League. So, if he's just as deserving as he was in July, why is Brian Snitker no longer my choice for NL Manager of the Year? And the answer to this one is even easier. Because the Milwaukee Brewers ended up with the best record in the National League.
A lot of people deserve credit for the Brewers' success this season. But they wouldn't have set a franchise record for wins, had the best record in the National League, or taken the Dodgers to Game 7 of the NLCS without the work of their manager. Like Kevin Cash, Craig Counsell had little to work with on the starting-pitching front. So he masterfully used his bevy of relievers in a variety of ways. Having Christian Yelich helped, too, but Counsell was able to figure out a lineup that had guys playing out of position all over the place. And, for a while, it seemed like they'd never lose again.
It also felt like the Rockies would never lose again in September, as Bud Black once again proved that he's one of the most underrated managers in baseball. Because we have to stop crediting Coors Field and the thin mountain air anytime the Rockies are competitive. This team is legit good, as evidence by their back-to-back playoff appearances. Remarkably, Colorado ended up in a dead-heat with the Dodgers in the NL West, with only a loss in Game 163 coming between the Rockies and their first division title.
This NL Manager of the Year one is going to be a tight one. Because it's not just the three finalists who you could make a legitimate argument for. Had the Phillies not collapsed in September, Gabe Kapler would definitely be in the discussion. Ditto about Torey Lovullo in Arizona and Mike Shildt, who got the Cardinals into playoff contention (and kept them there!) after taking over when Mike Matheny was fired. Even Dave Roberts probably got a vote or two (even if he outmanaged himself over and over again in the World Series).
The three finalists are probably the right three, though. Personally, I'd rank them 1-Counsell, 2-Snitker, 3-Black, but I really can see them ending up in any order. Although, I would be surprised if Craig Counsell isn't the winner. Those 95 wins and a division title over the Cubs are too much to ignore.
Monday, November 12, 2018
MLB Awards - The Rookies
For those of you who are regular readers of this blog, you know this is one of my favorite weeks of the year. It's the week in which the BBWAA announces the winners of the four major awards in both the American and National League. And, as usual, we get started with the rookies, which happens to be the award that's most up-for-grabs in each league.
There seems to be a pretty clear favorite in the Manager of the Year, Cy Young and MVP races. But for Rookie of the Year, it's really anybody's guess. All six finalists are deserving, although I think it's really a two-man race for each award. In the AL, it's Miguel Andujar vs. Shohei Ohtani, while it's Ronald Acuna Jr. vs. Juan Soto in the NL.
Ohtani was one of the most buzzed-about rookies in recent memory with what he was trying to do...pitching and hitting regularly in the Major Leagues. And for two months, he did it beyond anybody's expectations. His elbow eventually gave out, requiring Tommy John surgery and limiting exclusively to DH duty late in the season (and all of next year). But, all in all, the two-way thing was an overwhelming success. He had several brilliant starts and joined some guy named Babe Ruth as the only two players in Major League history to pitch 50 innings and hit 20 homers in the same season.
Because of the dual role, he ended up with a WAR of 3.8, the highest of any Rookie of the Year finalist. Now, I've made my case against WAR for years, and this is a prime example of it. His WAR is going to automatically be higher by the very nature of what he was doing. It theoretically would take two guys to "replace" him, because you're not gonna find anybody else who's a starting pitcher and also your starting DH!
Then there are the two "Baby Bombers" who helped the Yankees win 100 games and the wild card. After Gary Sanchez in 2016 and Aaron Judge last year, Miguel Andujar and Gleyber Torres will give the Yankees four top-three Rookie of the Year finishers in the past three seasons.
Andujar wasn't even on the Opening Day roster, but when Brandon Drury went on the DL in mid-April, he got an opportunity. And he ran with it. Andujar was so good that they couldn't take him out, and Drury, who the Yankees traded for to be their third baseman, ended up making the Triple A All-Star Team before being traded to Toronto. For his part, Andjuar hit either a double or a homer in seemingly every at-bat. He broke Joe DiMaggio's franchise rookie record for doubles and led all Major League rookies in pretty much every offensive category.
And, believe it or not, he wasn't even the Yankees' top Rookie of the Year candidate until August. That's because Gleyber Torres took the Major Leagues by storm after his call-up in late April. It became immediately obvious why the Yankees wanted Torres so badly. They were 17-3 in his first 20 games, and Gleyber ended up making the All-Star Team. He ended up with 24 home runs (some of which weren't three-run shots) while primarily batting ninth!
Ultimately, I think Ohtani is likely going to win. The two Yankees will probably split votes (even though Andujar should have the clear edge), and Ohtani's had all the buzz surrounding him all season. And, seeing as the writers are obsessed with Mike Trout, I can see them rewarding another guy who helped the Angels finish fourth.
My vote would be 1. Andujar, 2. Ohtani, 3. Torres. The actual result will probably be 1. Ohtani, 2. Andujar, 3. Torres.
As good as the three AL finalists were, if there's any rookie that took the Majors by storm this season, it was Washington's Juan Soto. The dude is only 19! (What is it about the Nationals and teenage outfielders?) Yet he proved he belonged and then some. He actually did something really cool and technically hit his first Major League home run before he made his Major League debut (it came at the end of a suspended game against the Yankees). He ended up hitting 22 home runs, and he hit one off the roof of the Tokyo Dome the other day in the Japan All-Star Series! If Bryce Harper leaves Washington (which I'm still not convinced he will), Soto is poised to become the Nationals' next star outfielder.
The Yankees have gotten a lot of praise for their player development system that has generated four Rookie of the Year finalists in the last three years. The Braves might be the National League equivalent. Because one year after they gave us Ozzie Albies, Ronald Acuna Jr. burst onto the scene. Like Torres, he wasn't called up until the end of April. Like Andujar, he didn't stop raking once he got to the Majors. He had an absolutely monster second half and ended up with a .293 average, 26 homers and 26 doubles while helping Atlanta win its first NL East title in five years. Did I mention he's only 20 (which is still a year older than Soto)?
Let's not forget about Walker Buehler, the only full-time pitcher among the six finalists. What he did wasn't easy, stepping into the rotation of a team that made the World Series last season and expected to get back (which they did). But he sure held his own in a rotation that needed a right-hander. Buehler was the starter when the Dodgers no-hit San Diego in Mexico (in like his third career start), and he was outstanding down the stretch. He posted a 1.58 ERA over the final two months and started--and won--Game 163 against Colorado. And, I know it doesn't count for Rookie of the Year voting, but let's not forget his performance in the World Series. He was brilliant over seven innings in Game 3, but took a no-decision in the 18-inning marathon that would turn out to be the Dodgers' only win of the series.
This really is a tough one to call. Because the case can be made for Soto and the case can be made for Acuna. (You could also really make a case for Buehler, the only one of the three who was in the Majors all season.) So it'll really come down to preference. Soto's definitely flashier and had the glove to go with his crazy power. But Acuna was a key contributor to a division winner that probably doesn't win the division without him.
Acuna's second half likely generated him some MVP votes, and that's why I think he'll ultimately end up being named NL Rookie of the Year. The differences between him and Soto are very slight, and their numbers were remarkably similar. But the Braves' division title and his role in winning it are what should put Acuna on top. It'll be a close vote, though. If anything, the three-year run of unanimous NL Rookies of the Year seems almost certain to end.
I absolutely love Juan Soto. The Nationals have another blossoming superstar on their hands. But I can't bring myself to say he should be the Rookie of the Year over Ronald Acuna Jr. If I had a vote, it'd go to Acuna, with Soto second and Buehler third. Which is exactly the order that I think the writers went with.
There seems to be a pretty clear favorite in the Manager of the Year, Cy Young and MVP races. But for Rookie of the Year, it's really anybody's guess. All six finalists are deserving, although I think it's really a two-man race for each award. In the AL, it's Miguel Andujar vs. Shohei Ohtani, while it's Ronald Acuna Jr. vs. Juan Soto in the NL.
Ohtani was one of the most buzzed-about rookies in recent memory with what he was trying to do...pitching and hitting regularly in the Major Leagues. And for two months, he did it beyond anybody's expectations. His elbow eventually gave out, requiring Tommy John surgery and limiting exclusively to DH duty late in the season (and all of next year). But, all in all, the two-way thing was an overwhelming success. He had several brilliant starts and joined some guy named Babe Ruth as the only two players in Major League history to pitch 50 innings and hit 20 homers in the same season.
Because of the dual role, he ended up with a WAR of 3.8, the highest of any Rookie of the Year finalist. Now, I've made my case against WAR for years, and this is a prime example of it. His WAR is going to automatically be higher by the very nature of what he was doing. It theoretically would take two guys to "replace" him, because you're not gonna find anybody else who's a starting pitcher and also your starting DH!
Then there are the two "Baby Bombers" who helped the Yankees win 100 games and the wild card. After Gary Sanchez in 2016 and Aaron Judge last year, Miguel Andujar and Gleyber Torres will give the Yankees four top-three Rookie of the Year finishers in the past three seasons.
Andujar wasn't even on the Opening Day roster, but when Brandon Drury went on the DL in mid-April, he got an opportunity. And he ran with it. Andujar was so good that they couldn't take him out, and Drury, who the Yankees traded for to be their third baseman, ended up making the Triple A All-Star Team before being traded to Toronto. For his part, Andjuar hit either a double or a homer in seemingly every at-bat. He broke Joe DiMaggio's franchise rookie record for doubles and led all Major League rookies in pretty much every offensive category.
And, believe it or not, he wasn't even the Yankees' top Rookie of the Year candidate until August. That's because Gleyber Torres took the Major Leagues by storm after his call-up in late April. It became immediately obvious why the Yankees wanted Torres so badly. They were 17-3 in his first 20 games, and Gleyber ended up making the All-Star Team. He ended up with 24 home runs (some of which weren't three-run shots) while primarily batting ninth!
Ultimately, I think Ohtani is likely going to win. The two Yankees will probably split votes (even though Andujar should have the clear edge), and Ohtani's had all the buzz surrounding him all season. And, seeing as the writers are obsessed with Mike Trout, I can see them rewarding another guy who helped the Angels finish fourth.
My vote would be 1. Andujar, 2. Ohtani, 3. Torres. The actual result will probably be 1. Ohtani, 2. Andujar, 3. Torres.
As good as the three AL finalists were, if there's any rookie that took the Majors by storm this season, it was Washington's Juan Soto. The dude is only 19! (What is it about the Nationals and teenage outfielders?) Yet he proved he belonged and then some. He actually did something really cool and technically hit his first Major League home run before he made his Major League debut (it came at the end of a suspended game against the Yankees). He ended up hitting 22 home runs, and he hit one off the roof of the Tokyo Dome the other day in the Japan All-Star Series! If Bryce Harper leaves Washington (which I'm still not convinced he will), Soto is poised to become the Nationals' next star outfielder.
The Yankees have gotten a lot of praise for their player development system that has generated four Rookie of the Year finalists in the last three years. The Braves might be the National League equivalent. Because one year after they gave us Ozzie Albies, Ronald Acuna Jr. burst onto the scene. Like Torres, he wasn't called up until the end of April. Like Andujar, he didn't stop raking once he got to the Majors. He had an absolutely monster second half and ended up with a .293 average, 26 homers and 26 doubles while helping Atlanta win its first NL East title in five years. Did I mention he's only 20 (which is still a year older than Soto)?
Let's not forget about Walker Buehler, the only full-time pitcher among the six finalists. What he did wasn't easy, stepping into the rotation of a team that made the World Series last season and expected to get back (which they did). But he sure held his own in a rotation that needed a right-hander. Buehler was the starter when the Dodgers no-hit San Diego in Mexico (in like his third career start), and he was outstanding down the stretch. He posted a 1.58 ERA over the final two months and started--and won--Game 163 against Colorado. And, I know it doesn't count for Rookie of the Year voting, but let's not forget his performance in the World Series. He was brilliant over seven innings in Game 3, but took a no-decision in the 18-inning marathon that would turn out to be the Dodgers' only win of the series.
This really is a tough one to call. Because the case can be made for Soto and the case can be made for Acuna. (You could also really make a case for Buehler, the only one of the three who was in the Majors all season.) So it'll really come down to preference. Soto's definitely flashier and had the glove to go with his crazy power. But Acuna was a key contributor to a division winner that probably doesn't win the division without him.
Acuna's second half likely generated him some MVP votes, and that's why I think he'll ultimately end up being named NL Rookie of the Year. The differences between him and Soto are very slight, and their numbers were remarkably similar. But the Braves' division title and his role in winning it are what should put Acuna on top. It'll be a close vote, though. If anything, the three-year run of unanimous NL Rookies of the Year seems almost certain to end.
I absolutely love Juan Soto. The Nationals have another blossoming superstar on their hands. But I can't bring myself to say he should be the Rookie of the Year over Ronald Acuna Jr. If I had a vote, it'd go to Acuna, with Soto second and Buehler third. Which is exactly the order that I think the writers went with.
Sunday, November 11, 2018
Week 10, NFL 2018
Now that we've gotten past the halfway point of the season, I think we might actually be starting to get a clearer picture of who's good and who's playing for next year. It's also completely remarkable what the future Hall of Fame quarterbacks have been doing. Drew Brees, Tom Brady and Ben Roethlisberger shouldn't sill be this good at this age.
They actually put up a pretty interesting graphic during either the Monday or Thursday night game (I can't remember which). Half of the starting quarterbacks for division leaders are 34 or older. And the other four are part of the NFL's next generation. The oldest of that group are Jared Goff and Mitchell Trubisky at the ripe old age of 24. Whether the old guys or the young guys end up on top at the end will definitely be an interesting story to follow during the second half of the season.
Thursday Night: Pittsburgh (Win)
Lions (3-5) at Bears (5-3): Chicago-Finally everyone in the NFC North will have the same number of games played and the Vikings-Packers tie will become far less confusing! The Bears are technically in first place since they have a better winning percentage than Minnesota, but now they'll be either a half-game ahead or a half-game behind. Count on that half-game being in front. Because we're past the halfway point. We have to start looking at the Bears as serious contenders. Interesting side note about this one: it's the first of two meetings in 11 days. The rematch is on Thanksgiving.
Saints (7-1) at Bengals (5-3): New Orleans-New Orleans moved to the top of a lot of NFL power ranking lists after they knocked off the Rams last week. And they're definitely a legitimate Super Bowl contender. Except that defense is still a bit of an issue. It's also pretty remarkable what they've been doing without any receivers. Dez Bryant was the perfect fit. Fate had other plans, though. Evidently Dez simply wasn't destined to play this year (sidebar: the Cowboys traded for Amari Cooper, who's basically a poor man's Dez Bryant). Anyway, they'll get that figured out. This game's not being played in prime time, so the Bengals have a chance. But the Saints are simply better.
Falcons (4-4) at Browns (2-6-1): Atlanta-After a 1-4 start, the Falcons have won three straight and are suddenly right back in it. The Browns, meanwhile, have gone the other way. They looked so good in the beginning of the season. But they've since regressed to the same old Cleveland Browns. Atlanta has a real chance to get over .500 for the first time this season. And with a tough stretch coming up, they kinda need to.
Patriots (7-2) at Titans (4-4): New England-Stop me if you've heard this before. The Patriots were 1-2. They've won six straight since and now have the second-best record in the AFC. Script sounds familiar, doesn't it? The Titans, meanwhile, that was impressive on Monday night. They were completely outplayed the entire first quarter, then dominated the rest of the game and got a win in Dallas. New England's last loss was to their former coordinator Matt Patricia and the Lions. Now they face their former linebacker Mike Vrabel for the first time. Vrabel's been gone for a while, though, so I don't think he'll have that same inside edge Patricia had.
Jaguars (3-5) at Colts (3-5): Jacksonville-Jacksonville vs. Indianapolis, with the loser in sole possession of last place. Sounds like the AFC South is back to normal. Turns out maybe the Jaguars' run to the AFC Championship Game last season was simply that. A good season. Nothing more. Because they've crashed back to Earth bad since starting 3-1. The good news is that even on the road, Indianapolis is a team they can handle. And the Jaguars have a much better defense than the Raiders, so don't expect the Colts to drop 48 again.
Cardinals (2-6) at Chiefs (8-1): Kansas City-With the Rams' finally losing, the Chiefs are now tied for the best record in football. Yet some "experts" don't even think they're the best team in the AFC because they lost to New England. They are. And their video game offense is going to have its usual fun against a not-good Cardinals team that has no defense and is 0-6 against all teams that aren't San Francisco.
Bills (2-7) at Jets (3-6): Jets-Buffalo has finally gotten sick of Nathan Peterman throwing passes to the other team, so the newly-signed Matt Barkley makes the start against the Jets. It's crazy to think that Buffalo was a playoff team last season (handing that longest playoff drought mantle to the Seattle Mariners). Because, not even a year later, they're completely clueless. Yet they beat the Vikings in Minnesota. The Jets, meanwhile, throw in a clunker here and there but have otherwise at least been competitive in every game. And this week they've got one that's winnable.
Redskins (5-3) at Buccaneers (3-5): Washington-Last week marked the first time all season that the Redskins lost a game in which they had the lead at any point. And they ended up getting their butts kicked by Atlanta. It was Washington's second butt-kicking of the season. Yet they're in sole possession of first place. The Bucs, meanwhile. Well, teams sure started to figure them out once they watched some tape. They're still capable of putting up points, though. So it'll be up to Alex Smith to outscore them and up to the Redskins defense to stop them at least once or twice.
Chargers (6-2) at Raiders (1-7): Chargers-The Chargers are good. The Raiders? Not so much. If not for Kansas City being in the same division, we'd be talking about the Chargers as potentially the elite team in the AFC (for the record, I have them at No. 5 in the power ratings behind the Saints, Chiefs, Rams and Patriots). They're gonna keep rolling John Gruden will keep wondering if this return to coaching really was a good idea. Seriously, how bad do you have to be to lose by 31 to the 49ers?
Dolphins (5-4) at Packers (3-4-1): Green Bay-Green Bay is 3-0-1 at home and 0-4 on the road. They'll have to figure out a way to win outside of Lambeau eventually, but that's not a problem this week. And, frankly, they needed to get back home. They haven't been there since Week 6, and they're right back on the road for their next two after this. Which makes a win here that much more imperative. The fact that they're playing Miami outdoors in Wisconsin in November certainly helps, too.
Seahawks (4-4) at Rams (8-1): Rams-How do the Rams respond after suffering their first loss of the season last week? My guess is they'll respond fine. Nobody expected them to go undefeated, and they knew winning in New Orleans was going to be a tough task. And now the pressure of the undefeated record is off. Sure, the Saints having the tiebreaker isn't ideal, but if New Orleans can run that NFC South gauntlet unscathed, they deserve to be the No. 1 seed. And the Rams will be there should they stumble. Next week's Monday night showdown with the Chiefs in Mexico City will be the game of the season when they both enter with only one loss.
Cowboys (3-5) at Eagles (4-4): Philadelphia-NFC East games have been staples of Sunday Night Football ever since the package moved to NBC in 2006. And I think they've featured Cowboys-Eagles every year. With good reason. It's usually a good game when they get together. This one is also a must-win for both teams, too. Especially the Cowboys, who'd essentially need to run the table if they drop to 3-6. The Eagles know that the division is still in play for them, though. And it's still very doable. But first, they need to beat Dallas.
Giants (1-7) at 49ers (2-7): Giants-Well, we know that one of them definitely won't lose! If the 49ers win, they'll actually be on a winning streak, which speaks more to the fact that they'll have played the Raiders and Giants at home in back-to-back weeks than anything else. But, hey, you'll take wins wherever you can get them. Which also applies to that dysfunctional team on the other coast. It was their trip to San Francisco last season where things really started going from bad to worse for the Giants. For some reason, I think this year's matchup will go better for them. They didn't lose last week (it was their bye week, but still) and they know that they don't have many winnable games left after this one. Call me crazy, but I think they get the W.
This Week: 1-0
Last Week: 11-2
Overall: 87-46-2
They actually put up a pretty interesting graphic during either the Monday or Thursday night game (I can't remember which). Half of the starting quarterbacks for division leaders are 34 or older. And the other four are part of the NFL's next generation. The oldest of that group are Jared Goff and Mitchell Trubisky at the ripe old age of 24. Whether the old guys or the young guys end up on top at the end will definitely be an interesting story to follow during the second half of the season.
Thursday Night: Pittsburgh (Win)
Lions (3-5) at Bears (5-3): Chicago-Finally everyone in the NFC North will have the same number of games played and the Vikings-Packers tie will become far less confusing! The Bears are technically in first place since they have a better winning percentage than Minnesota, but now they'll be either a half-game ahead or a half-game behind. Count on that half-game being in front. Because we're past the halfway point. We have to start looking at the Bears as serious contenders. Interesting side note about this one: it's the first of two meetings in 11 days. The rematch is on Thanksgiving.
Saints (7-1) at Bengals (5-3): New Orleans-New Orleans moved to the top of a lot of NFL power ranking lists after they knocked off the Rams last week. And they're definitely a legitimate Super Bowl contender. Except that defense is still a bit of an issue. It's also pretty remarkable what they've been doing without any receivers. Dez Bryant was the perfect fit. Fate had other plans, though. Evidently Dez simply wasn't destined to play this year (sidebar: the Cowboys traded for Amari Cooper, who's basically a poor man's Dez Bryant). Anyway, they'll get that figured out. This game's not being played in prime time, so the Bengals have a chance. But the Saints are simply better.
Falcons (4-4) at Browns (2-6-1): Atlanta-After a 1-4 start, the Falcons have won three straight and are suddenly right back in it. The Browns, meanwhile, have gone the other way. They looked so good in the beginning of the season. But they've since regressed to the same old Cleveland Browns. Atlanta has a real chance to get over .500 for the first time this season. And with a tough stretch coming up, they kinda need to.
Patriots (7-2) at Titans (4-4): New England-Stop me if you've heard this before. The Patriots were 1-2. They've won six straight since and now have the second-best record in the AFC. Script sounds familiar, doesn't it? The Titans, meanwhile, that was impressive on Monday night. They were completely outplayed the entire first quarter, then dominated the rest of the game and got a win in Dallas. New England's last loss was to their former coordinator Matt Patricia and the Lions. Now they face their former linebacker Mike Vrabel for the first time. Vrabel's been gone for a while, though, so I don't think he'll have that same inside edge Patricia had.
Jaguars (3-5) at Colts (3-5): Jacksonville-Jacksonville vs. Indianapolis, with the loser in sole possession of last place. Sounds like the AFC South is back to normal. Turns out maybe the Jaguars' run to the AFC Championship Game last season was simply that. A good season. Nothing more. Because they've crashed back to Earth bad since starting 3-1. The good news is that even on the road, Indianapolis is a team they can handle. And the Jaguars have a much better defense than the Raiders, so don't expect the Colts to drop 48 again.
Cardinals (2-6) at Chiefs (8-1): Kansas City-With the Rams' finally losing, the Chiefs are now tied for the best record in football. Yet some "experts" don't even think they're the best team in the AFC because they lost to New England. They are. And their video game offense is going to have its usual fun against a not-good Cardinals team that has no defense and is 0-6 against all teams that aren't San Francisco.
Bills (2-7) at Jets (3-6): Jets-Buffalo has finally gotten sick of Nathan Peterman throwing passes to the other team, so the newly-signed Matt Barkley makes the start against the Jets. It's crazy to think that Buffalo was a playoff team last season (handing that longest playoff drought mantle to the Seattle Mariners). Because, not even a year later, they're completely clueless. Yet they beat the Vikings in Minnesota. The Jets, meanwhile, throw in a clunker here and there but have otherwise at least been competitive in every game. And this week they've got one that's winnable.
Redskins (5-3) at Buccaneers (3-5): Washington-Last week marked the first time all season that the Redskins lost a game in which they had the lead at any point. And they ended up getting their butts kicked by Atlanta. It was Washington's second butt-kicking of the season. Yet they're in sole possession of first place. The Bucs, meanwhile. Well, teams sure started to figure them out once they watched some tape. They're still capable of putting up points, though. So it'll be up to Alex Smith to outscore them and up to the Redskins defense to stop them at least once or twice.
Chargers (6-2) at Raiders (1-7): Chargers-The Chargers are good. The Raiders? Not so much. If not for Kansas City being in the same division, we'd be talking about the Chargers as potentially the elite team in the AFC (for the record, I have them at No. 5 in the power ratings behind the Saints, Chiefs, Rams and Patriots). They're gonna keep rolling John Gruden will keep wondering if this return to coaching really was a good idea. Seriously, how bad do you have to be to lose by 31 to the 49ers?
Dolphins (5-4) at Packers (3-4-1): Green Bay-Green Bay is 3-0-1 at home and 0-4 on the road. They'll have to figure out a way to win outside of Lambeau eventually, but that's not a problem this week. And, frankly, they needed to get back home. They haven't been there since Week 6, and they're right back on the road for their next two after this. Which makes a win here that much more imperative. The fact that they're playing Miami outdoors in Wisconsin in November certainly helps, too.
Seahawks (4-4) at Rams (8-1): Rams-How do the Rams respond after suffering their first loss of the season last week? My guess is they'll respond fine. Nobody expected them to go undefeated, and they knew winning in New Orleans was going to be a tough task. And now the pressure of the undefeated record is off. Sure, the Saints having the tiebreaker isn't ideal, but if New Orleans can run that NFC South gauntlet unscathed, they deserve to be the No. 1 seed. And the Rams will be there should they stumble. Next week's Monday night showdown with the Chiefs in Mexico City will be the game of the season when they both enter with only one loss.
Cowboys (3-5) at Eagles (4-4): Philadelphia-NFC East games have been staples of Sunday Night Football ever since the package moved to NBC in 2006. And I think they've featured Cowboys-Eagles every year. With good reason. It's usually a good game when they get together. This one is also a must-win for both teams, too. Especially the Cowboys, who'd essentially need to run the table if they drop to 3-6. The Eagles know that the division is still in play for them, though. And it's still very doable. But first, they need to beat Dallas.
Giants (1-7) at 49ers (2-7): Giants-Well, we know that one of them definitely won't lose! If the 49ers win, they'll actually be on a winning streak, which speaks more to the fact that they'll have played the Raiders and Giants at home in back-to-back weeks than anything else. But, hey, you'll take wins wherever you can get them. Which also applies to that dysfunctional team on the other coast. It was their trip to San Francisco last season where things really started going from bad to worse for the Giants. For some reason, I think this year's matchup will go better for them. They didn't lose last week (it was their bye week, but still) and they know that they don't have many winnable games left after this one. Call me crazy, but I think they get the W.
This Week: 1-0
Last Week: 11-2
Overall: 87-46-2
Saturday, November 10, 2018
Trying a Different Tactic
Remember Bracket Buster Saturday? It was college basketball's made-for-TV series of games in mid-February where good mid-major teams would play each other late in the season so that one of them would get another quality win on its resume for NCAA Tournament consideration. It started off as a great idea and it served its purpose for a while, but it eventually became too overblown with so many teams (even bad ones) and conferences participating.
While the concept eventually outlived its usefulness, the original idea behind Bracket Buster Saturday was a good one. It was designed to help mid-major teams get into the Tournament, and it worked. For a few years, we saw three or four mid-major teams receiving at-large bids. That has most certainly changed, and the mid-major conferences have definitely taken notice. And, with a revival of Bracket Buster Saturday not on the horizon, one conference in particular hopes to be able to do something about that lack of at-large bids on its own.
Conference USA has been one of the biggest victims of all the realignment over the past 15 years. At its peak, Conference USA boasted Louisville, Cincinnati, Marquette, Memphis, Tulsa and Saint Louis (among others) as members. But Conference USA members were attractive targets whenever major conferences were looking for new members (when the Big East expanded to 16, they added five former Conference USA schools). As a result, the conference is a shell of its former self that has changed greatly. Since 2013 alone, Conference USA has added nine new members. Of the 11 founding members in 1995, only UAB and Southern Miss remain (Charlotte left for the Atlantic 10 in 2003 but has since returned).
Since the exodus of the marquee programs in 2005-06, Conference USA has become a one-bid league. In fact, over the past 13 NCAA Tournaments, only four Conference USA teams have received at-large bids, the most recent being Southern Miss in 2012. Middle Tennessee was one of the more notable snubs from the field last season, when they went 25-8 and beat two SEC teams (including Vanderbilt on the road). But a first-round loss in the Conference USA Tournament knocked them into the NIT.
Meanwhile, surprise Conference USA Tournament champ Marshall won its first-round game in the NCAA Tournament, marking the fourth straight year in which the Conference USA team won its opening game. None of those teams was seeded higher than 12th in its region (14, 15, 12, 13).
The powers-that-be at Conference USA feel that the conference has been given the shaft by the NCAA, and they're tired of it. And they're confident strength of schedule is one of the reasons why. As a result, they've devised an interesting plan for their conference schedule this season.
Each Conference USA team will play 18 conference games, but they only know the opponents for the first 14 of them right now. There are 14 teams in Conference USA, so they'll all play everybody else once and a second game against their travel partner. Then, after those first 14 games, the teams will be grouped based on the standings, and the teams in your group are the ones you'll play down the stretch.
This way, they figure, it'll enhance the strength of schedule for the top teams in the conference. Because now, instead of just playing whoever, they'll be guaranteed of four quality games down the stretch. How much their strength of schedule actually improves will be minimal (even the best Conference USA teams don't have high RPIs).
There's incentive here for the bottom teams, too, since only 12 of the 14 teams qualify for the conference tournament. Now those teams will battle each other for those last two berths instead of seeing somebody potentially get knocked out simply because they have a more difficult schedule.
Those top teams won't be penalized come conference tournament time, either. Whatever group you're in when they make the rest of the schedule, that's your seed group. So, if you're in that top group, you can't be seeded lower than fifth, even if the sixth-place team ends up with a better conference record (which will almost certainly happen).
Of course, there are a ton of logistical hurdles that need to be figured out. Conference USA teams are very spread out, stretching East to West from Miami to basically Mexico (I see you, UTEP) and as far north as West Virginia. So, needless to say, there's a lot of travel. And those travel details are typically arranged well in advance. But all they know is they're going to have two home and two road games in the final two weeks. They have no idea where or when.
And the biggest elephant in the room is that there's no guarantee of success. No one knows whether or not this will lead to Conference USA getting more than just the one NCAA Tournament bid. There might only be one quality team in Conference USA (which was the case when John Calipari was still at Memphis and they were dominating the league). If that team wins the conference tournament, there's not even a discussion about an at-large.
I get what they're trying to do, though. Conference USA remembers the days when they had Louisville and Cincinnati and were regularly receiving multiple NCAA Tournament bids. Those days are long since over, but they want to remain relevant on the college basketball scene. They also feel that their teams deserve a chance at an at-large bid. At least a bigger chance than they've been getting.
Again, whether or not it'll work is anybody's guess. But Conference USA at least should get some credit for being willing to do something different. Maybe it'll become a new trend among mid-major conferences who also feel they've been slighted in the at-large conversation. Come March, we'll find out what the NCAA thinks about this new scheduling strategy.
While the concept eventually outlived its usefulness, the original idea behind Bracket Buster Saturday was a good one. It was designed to help mid-major teams get into the Tournament, and it worked. For a few years, we saw three or four mid-major teams receiving at-large bids. That has most certainly changed, and the mid-major conferences have definitely taken notice. And, with a revival of Bracket Buster Saturday not on the horizon, one conference in particular hopes to be able to do something about that lack of at-large bids on its own.
Conference USA has been one of the biggest victims of all the realignment over the past 15 years. At its peak, Conference USA boasted Louisville, Cincinnati, Marquette, Memphis, Tulsa and Saint Louis (among others) as members. But Conference USA members were attractive targets whenever major conferences were looking for new members (when the Big East expanded to 16, they added five former Conference USA schools). As a result, the conference is a shell of its former self that has changed greatly. Since 2013 alone, Conference USA has added nine new members. Of the 11 founding members in 1995, only UAB and Southern Miss remain (Charlotte left for the Atlantic 10 in 2003 but has since returned).
Since the exodus of the marquee programs in 2005-06, Conference USA has become a one-bid league. In fact, over the past 13 NCAA Tournaments, only four Conference USA teams have received at-large bids, the most recent being Southern Miss in 2012. Middle Tennessee was one of the more notable snubs from the field last season, when they went 25-8 and beat two SEC teams (including Vanderbilt on the road). But a first-round loss in the Conference USA Tournament knocked them into the NIT.
Meanwhile, surprise Conference USA Tournament champ Marshall won its first-round game in the NCAA Tournament, marking the fourth straight year in which the Conference USA team won its opening game. None of those teams was seeded higher than 12th in its region (14, 15, 12, 13).
The powers-that-be at Conference USA feel that the conference has been given the shaft by the NCAA, and they're tired of it. And they're confident strength of schedule is one of the reasons why. As a result, they've devised an interesting plan for their conference schedule this season.
Each Conference USA team will play 18 conference games, but they only know the opponents for the first 14 of them right now. There are 14 teams in Conference USA, so they'll all play everybody else once and a second game against their travel partner. Then, after those first 14 games, the teams will be grouped based on the standings, and the teams in your group are the ones you'll play down the stretch.
This way, they figure, it'll enhance the strength of schedule for the top teams in the conference. Because now, instead of just playing whoever, they'll be guaranteed of four quality games down the stretch. How much their strength of schedule actually improves will be minimal (even the best Conference USA teams don't have high RPIs).
There's incentive here for the bottom teams, too, since only 12 of the 14 teams qualify for the conference tournament. Now those teams will battle each other for those last two berths instead of seeing somebody potentially get knocked out simply because they have a more difficult schedule.
Those top teams won't be penalized come conference tournament time, either. Whatever group you're in when they make the rest of the schedule, that's your seed group. So, if you're in that top group, you can't be seeded lower than fifth, even if the sixth-place team ends up with a better conference record (which will almost certainly happen).
Of course, there are a ton of logistical hurdles that need to be figured out. Conference USA teams are very spread out, stretching East to West from Miami to basically Mexico (I see you, UTEP) and as far north as West Virginia. So, needless to say, there's a lot of travel. And those travel details are typically arranged well in advance. But all they know is they're going to have two home and two road games in the final two weeks. They have no idea where or when.
And the biggest elephant in the room is that there's no guarantee of success. No one knows whether or not this will lead to Conference USA getting more than just the one NCAA Tournament bid. There might only be one quality team in Conference USA (which was the case when John Calipari was still at Memphis and they were dominating the league). If that team wins the conference tournament, there's not even a discussion about an at-large.
I get what they're trying to do, though. Conference USA remembers the days when they had Louisville and Cincinnati and were regularly receiving multiple NCAA Tournament bids. Those days are long since over, but they want to remain relevant on the college basketball scene. They also feel that their teams deserve a chance at an at-large bid. At least a bigger chance than they've been getting.
Again, whether or not it'll work is anybody's guess. But Conference USA at least should get some credit for being willing to do something different. Maybe it'll become a new trend among mid-major conferences who also feel they've been slighted in the at-large conversation. Come March, we'll find out what the NCAA thinks about this new scheduling strategy.
Wednesday, November 7, 2018
Sorry, But It Shouldn't Count
College basketball season has begun. If it seems ridiculously early to be college basketball season, that's because it is. But we'd better get used to it. Because the Election Day start date for Division I basketball is the new thing. And it's likely here to stay. Unless, of course, they make the start date even earlier.
ESPN always makes sure there are a few good games on opening night, and this year was no exception. The Champions Classic featured a doubleheader involving four traditional powers, all of whom are in the preseason top 10. We had Kansas vs. Michigan State and Duke vs. Kentucky. Florida and Florida State also squared off, and there were some good matchups on the mid-major level too.
There were also plenty of guarantee games. These serve a similar purpose as guarantee games in football. The major school gets their easy win. The low- or mid-major gets the prestige of playing a top program on their floor on (likely national) TV, and they get some money out of it. That, along with the strength of schedule boost, sure makes the beat down worth it. And, if they can make the game competitive, that's all the better.
I have no issue with guarantee games. They make sense for all involved and are a fact of life in big-time college basketball. Well, actually let me rephrase that. I have no issue with guarantee games as long as it's Division I vs. Division I.
Because, unfortunately, opening night also featured way too many matchups of a Division I program taking on an opponent from a lower level. I'm not just talking about Power 5 teams, either. Yes, Tennessee played Lenoir Rhyne. But there were also those exciting barn burners between Green Bay and Wisconsin Lutheran, Fordham and CCNY, New Hampshire and Rivier, and James Madison vs. Eastern Mennonite (among way too many others).
Why the NCAA allows this is beyond me. Other than padding stats and giving new guys a chance to play, there's no benefit to playing these glorified exhibitions for the Division I team. It doesn't count towards their RPI or tournament consideration. All they get out of it is a win (which could be the difference between whether the coach that scheduled the game gets a contract extension/bonus or not). The Division III team, meanwhile, doesn't even get a loss. The game doesn't count at all for them.
That's one of the many things about these type of games that makes absolutely no sense to me. If it doesn't count for one team, how come it counts for the other? It should either count for both or not count for either. That would be like the Yankees playing a three-game series against the Buffalo Bisons and counting it the same as a three-game series against the Red Sox.
Division I teams shouldn't be able to guarantee themselves two wins (and use two of their 29 official game dates) against opponents that aren't even Division I. These are the same teams, mind you, that refuse to play even decent mid-majors on the road for fear of losing. Those games would at least boost their RPI, though. Even if they lost them. Playing these games against Division III teams, meanwhile, don't do anything for the Division I team in the long run.
Here's another thing about these games that I don't understand. If you schedule it before the official first day of the season, it's an exhibition game. But if you schedule it after the start date, it's officially part of the regular season and counts towards the team's record and season stats. Why does the date matter? If a Division I team is playing a team that isn't D1, it should be an exhibition whether they play it in October or in January.
If you can't get into a Christmas tournament and want to get a game in before conference play starts, go ahead. Play the local D3 school. Just don't count it the same as you would a conference game.
Likewise, if an alum or one of the coach's former players is the D3 coach and you want to bring his team in, go for it. Just don't treat it the same as a D1 vs. D1 non-conference game. Because, unlike Division I players, these guys aren't getting full scholarships. Everyone knows the're not as good as you!
Some conferences have taken steps to prevent their teams from doing that, passing league rules dictating the types of opponents you can meet or establishing certain strength of schedule requirements. But it shouldn't be on the conferences to do something.
The NCAA are the ones who allow it. And they're the ones who have the power to stop it. All they have to do is put out a press release explaining the new legislation. Of course, that seems unlikely, though. Because there are plenty of schools and coaches who benefit from the current system that would oppose the change.
It's also worth noting that this only happens in basketball. When BCS teams play FCS teams in football, the game counts for both teams. It's stupid that it's not the same in basketball. It's even more stupid that these games take place at all. There are 351 Division I teams. Which means there are plenty of teams at your own level for you to play. You can even pay some of them to play you if you want.
ESPN always makes sure there are a few good games on opening night, and this year was no exception. The Champions Classic featured a doubleheader involving four traditional powers, all of whom are in the preseason top 10. We had Kansas vs. Michigan State and Duke vs. Kentucky. Florida and Florida State also squared off, and there were some good matchups on the mid-major level too.
There were also plenty of guarantee games. These serve a similar purpose as guarantee games in football. The major school gets their easy win. The low- or mid-major gets the prestige of playing a top program on their floor on (likely national) TV, and they get some money out of it. That, along with the strength of schedule boost, sure makes the beat down worth it. And, if they can make the game competitive, that's all the better.
I have no issue with guarantee games. They make sense for all involved and are a fact of life in big-time college basketball. Well, actually let me rephrase that. I have no issue with guarantee games as long as it's Division I vs. Division I.
Because, unfortunately, opening night also featured way too many matchups of a Division I program taking on an opponent from a lower level. I'm not just talking about Power 5 teams, either. Yes, Tennessee played Lenoir Rhyne. But there were also those exciting barn burners between Green Bay and Wisconsin Lutheran, Fordham and CCNY, New Hampshire and Rivier, and James Madison vs. Eastern Mennonite (among way too many others).
Why the NCAA allows this is beyond me. Other than padding stats and giving new guys a chance to play, there's no benefit to playing these glorified exhibitions for the Division I team. It doesn't count towards their RPI or tournament consideration. All they get out of it is a win (which could be the difference between whether the coach that scheduled the game gets a contract extension/bonus or not). The Division III team, meanwhile, doesn't even get a loss. The game doesn't count at all for them.
That's one of the many things about these type of games that makes absolutely no sense to me. If it doesn't count for one team, how come it counts for the other? It should either count for both or not count for either. That would be like the Yankees playing a three-game series against the Buffalo Bisons and counting it the same as a three-game series against the Red Sox.
Division I teams shouldn't be able to guarantee themselves two wins (and use two of their 29 official game dates) against opponents that aren't even Division I. These are the same teams, mind you, that refuse to play even decent mid-majors on the road for fear of losing. Those games would at least boost their RPI, though. Even if they lost them. Playing these games against Division III teams, meanwhile, don't do anything for the Division I team in the long run.
Here's another thing about these games that I don't understand. If you schedule it before the official first day of the season, it's an exhibition game. But if you schedule it after the start date, it's officially part of the regular season and counts towards the team's record and season stats. Why does the date matter? If a Division I team is playing a team that isn't D1, it should be an exhibition whether they play it in October or in January.
If you can't get into a Christmas tournament and want to get a game in before conference play starts, go ahead. Play the local D3 school. Just don't count it the same as you would a conference game.
Likewise, if an alum or one of the coach's former players is the D3 coach and you want to bring his team in, go for it. Just don't treat it the same as a D1 vs. D1 non-conference game. Because, unlike Division I players, these guys aren't getting full scholarships. Everyone knows the're not as good as you!
Some conferences have taken steps to prevent their teams from doing that, passing league rules dictating the types of opponents you can meet or establishing certain strength of schedule requirements. But it shouldn't be on the conferences to do something.
The NCAA are the ones who allow it. And they're the ones who have the power to stop it. All they have to do is put out a press release explaining the new legislation. Of course, that seems unlikely, though. Because there are plenty of schools and coaches who benefit from the current system that would oppose the change.
It's also worth noting that this only happens in basketball. When BCS teams play FCS teams in football, the game counts for both teams. It's stupid that it's not the same in basketball. It's even more stupid that these games take place at all. There are 351 Division I teams. Which means there are plenty of teams at your own level for you to play. You can even pay some of them to play you if you want.
Tuesday, November 6, 2018
Finally Doing the Right Thing
Last week, the University of Maryland made the absolutely shocking and unbelievable announcement that football coach D.J. Durkin was being reinstated from administrative leave. That lasted all of a day before Maryland's president made the decision (on his own) to fire Durkin. Why that decision wasn't reached immediately is beyond me. Just like it's beyond me how any reasonable person could think that there was any other decision to be made.
It shouldn't have even been a question. Durkin had to go. Their own investigation even discovered some disturbing things about the football program and the culture surrounding it (but refused to call it "toxic")! Yet they refused to blame Durkin! In fact, they even went so far as to publicly say "We believe Coach Durkin has been unfairly blamed for the dysfunction in the athletic department. While he bears some responsibility, it is not fair to place it all at his feet." It's unfair? He bears SOME responsibility? He's the freakin' head coach, and a player died during a workout! The fact that he wasn't running the workout is irrelevant.
As if that wasn't screwed up enough, the Board told the university president that if he didn't reinstate Durkin, he would be the one fired! Talk about wrong priorities. For whatever reason, the Board was all in on Durkin and didn't want to admit the obvious. So, they bullied the only guy in the room who knew what had to happen into doing what they wanted.
To his credit, Maryland President Wallace Loh made it clear that reinstating Durkin wasn't his choice. He threw the Board completely under the bus when making the announcement, as if he anticipated the backlash that was coming. At the same time, Loh announced his retirement effective June 30. It's probably safe to say that he was gently pushed out.
Not surprisingly, Durkin's reinstatement didn't go over well. But that's what happens when the only people who think the guy should be brought back are the handful of morons actually making the call. Players walked out of Durkin's first team meeting back. Student groups planned protests. The McNair family threatened further legal action. Politicians made it a campaign issue (and it actually IS politicians' business in this case since Maryland is a state school that gets state funds). Pretty much everyone with a functioning brain criticized them for their idiotic decision.
Idiotic. Embarrassing. Tone-deaf. Choose your adjective. It was the wrong decision all around. Everybody other than a few Maryland Board members knew that. And immediately after Loh made the announcement, the marriage between D.J. Durkin and Maryland was doomed. And is was also destined not to end well.
What surprised me even more than the Board reinstating the coach was what happened next. Durkin was back at work for not even a day before he was fired. This time Loh took it upon himself to do what should've been done all along. The decision to fire Durkin was 100 percent his own. That was abundantly clear. Loh knew what had to be done. He didn't care what the repercussions would be.
Yet the Board continued to be completely clueless about the situation. They argued that Loh "caved to public pressure," but acknowledged that he had the authority to fire Durkin on his own. Loh didn't fire Durkin to make the public happy. He fired him because Durkin deserved to be fired. His statement to the Maryland community that said "a departure is in the best interest of the university" made it seem like that and was very kind to Durkin. But he did what had to be done. Plain and simple. The difference is that the public recognized that and the Board didn't.
When I say "the Board," I really mean Board Chairman Jim Brady. Because the boneheaded decision to retain Durkin was almost entirely at his urging. And Jim Brady was trying to protect "his" guy. Plain and simple. He was looking out for his own interests over those of the university. How could you trust any of his recommendations moving forward?
In the last act of the saga, Brady resigned less than 24 hours after Durkin was fired. His statement, however, was a joke: "In recent days, I have become the public face of both the board and its decision related to these matters. In my estimation, my continued presence on the board will inhibit its ability to move Maryland's higher education agenda forward. And I have no interest in serving as a distraction from that important work."
Please, Jim. You're not the victim here. Jordan McNair is. And the fact that you failed to realize that means you had no business serving as the chairman of a major university's board in the first place. You're right about one thing. You did become the public face of the controversy. But that's because you made yourself that face by threatening the university president into making the wrong decision simply because that's what you wanted. And, if you hadn't resigned, you were likely going to be removed by the governor (who, again, can do that at a state university). For good reason.
Now the University of Maryland can begin the process of moving forward. Jordan McNair didn't get justice. That's not really possible. But the people who needed to be held accountable for his death were. The right thing was done. Even if it took a few days.
It shouldn't have even been a question. Durkin had to go. Their own investigation even discovered some disturbing things about the football program and the culture surrounding it (but refused to call it "toxic")! Yet they refused to blame Durkin! In fact, they even went so far as to publicly say "We believe Coach Durkin has been unfairly blamed for the dysfunction in the athletic department. While he bears some responsibility, it is not fair to place it all at his feet." It's unfair? He bears SOME responsibility? He's the freakin' head coach, and a player died during a workout! The fact that he wasn't running the workout is irrelevant.
As if that wasn't screwed up enough, the Board told the university president that if he didn't reinstate Durkin, he would be the one fired! Talk about wrong priorities. For whatever reason, the Board was all in on Durkin and didn't want to admit the obvious. So, they bullied the only guy in the room who knew what had to happen into doing what they wanted.
To his credit, Maryland President Wallace Loh made it clear that reinstating Durkin wasn't his choice. He threw the Board completely under the bus when making the announcement, as if he anticipated the backlash that was coming. At the same time, Loh announced his retirement effective June 30. It's probably safe to say that he was gently pushed out.
Not surprisingly, Durkin's reinstatement didn't go over well. But that's what happens when the only people who think the guy should be brought back are the handful of morons actually making the call. Players walked out of Durkin's first team meeting back. Student groups planned protests. The McNair family threatened further legal action. Politicians made it a campaign issue (and it actually IS politicians' business in this case since Maryland is a state school that gets state funds). Pretty much everyone with a functioning brain criticized them for their idiotic decision.
Idiotic. Embarrassing. Tone-deaf. Choose your adjective. It was the wrong decision all around. Everybody other than a few Maryland Board members knew that. And immediately after Loh made the announcement, the marriage between D.J. Durkin and Maryland was doomed. And is was also destined not to end well.
What surprised me even more than the Board reinstating the coach was what happened next. Durkin was back at work for not even a day before he was fired. This time Loh took it upon himself to do what should've been done all along. The decision to fire Durkin was 100 percent his own. That was abundantly clear. Loh knew what had to be done. He didn't care what the repercussions would be.
Yet the Board continued to be completely clueless about the situation. They argued that Loh "caved to public pressure," but acknowledged that he had the authority to fire Durkin on his own. Loh didn't fire Durkin to make the public happy. He fired him because Durkin deserved to be fired. His statement to the Maryland community that said "a departure is in the best interest of the university" made it seem like that and was very kind to Durkin. But he did what had to be done. Plain and simple. The difference is that the public recognized that and the Board didn't.
When I say "the Board," I really mean Board Chairman Jim Brady. Because the boneheaded decision to retain Durkin was almost entirely at his urging. And Jim Brady was trying to protect "his" guy. Plain and simple. He was looking out for his own interests over those of the university. How could you trust any of his recommendations moving forward?
In the last act of the saga, Brady resigned less than 24 hours after Durkin was fired. His statement, however, was a joke: "In recent days, I have become the public face of both the board and its decision related to these matters. In my estimation, my continued presence on the board will inhibit its ability to move Maryland's higher education agenda forward. And I have no interest in serving as a distraction from that important work."
Please, Jim. You're not the victim here. Jordan McNair is. And the fact that you failed to realize that means you had no business serving as the chairman of a major university's board in the first place. You're right about one thing. You did become the public face of the controversy. But that's because you made yourself that face by threatening the university president into making the wrong decision simply because that's what you wanted. And, if you hadn't resigned, you were likely going to be removed by the governor (who, again, can do that at a state university). For good reason.
Now the University of Maryland can begin the process of moving forward. Jordan McNair didn't get justice. That's not really possible. But the people who needed to be held accountable for his death were. The right thing was done. Even if it took a few days.
Sunday, November 4, 2018
Week 9, NFL 2018
Hey, the Giants can't lose this week! And the Raiders already did. (How bad does a team have to be to get slaughtered by the 49ers?) We've made it halfway through the season, and we've determined that those two are really bad. We've also established that the Rams, Saints and Chiefs are really good. There are plenty of other teams that are just below the level of those three, and we're starting to see matchups between legitimate contenders.
We're also finally done with London games, as all remaining contests will take place on this side of The Pond. However, this is also one of the weeks where there are six teams with byes (seriously why is four byes each week from Weeks 4-11 so difficult to figure out?), which means we're light on the total number of games in store.
Thursday Night: San Francisco (Win)
Bears (4-3) at Bills (2-6): Chicago-Do we have to accept the Chicago Bears as legitimate contenders in the NFC North? I'm still not completely sold, but here we are at midseason and they're just a half-game out of first (and ahead of the Packers in the standings). The Bills, meanwhile, look completely lost against good teams. I guess that's what happens when you don't have a quarterback. Chicago should go in there and come away with a victory.
Chiefs (7-1) at Browns (2-5-1): Kansas City-So, let me see if I've got this straight? Hue Jackson goes 1-31 over two seasons and manages to keep his job, then gets fired in the middle of the year when they already have two wins and have been competitive in all but their last two games? Definitely much more in play here (probably regarding Baker Mayfield). The timing just feels odd. Especially since they haven't had their bye yet. Kansas City, meanwhile, should just keep on rolling.
Jets (3-5) at Dolphins (4-4): Miami-After they won the first meeting against the Jets, we thought the Dolphins might be actual contenders. But it's sure looking like that was actually a mirage. Because, as it turns out, the Titans aren't really that good, and Miami's only win after that 3-0 start (against three bad teams) came in overtime (albeit against a good Bears team). And they sure got smacked around last week. They're better than the Jets, though. That should get them over .500.
Lions (3-4) at Vikings (4-3-1): Minnesota-Thanks to that Packers-Vikings tie, everybody in the NFC North is within a game and a half of each other. Which makes division games that much more important. And Minnesota's got a lot of them left. This is actually the first of three straight for the Vikings, who play the Patriots right after. So, yeah, losing to the Lions would be bad. Especially since it would leave them only a half-game ahead of Detroit.
Falcons (3-4) at Redskins (5-2): Washington-It hasn't always been pretty, but the Redskins have gotten the job done week after week. And Alex Smith has them in first place with a chance to hit the midway point at 6-2. The Falcons, meanwhile, desperately need a win if they have any shot at the other wild card spot (assuming Carolina and New Orleans both make the playoffs). I'm not sure they get it, though. Especially if the Redskins get out to an early lead.
Buccaneers (3-4) at Panthers (5-2): Carolina-Tampa Bay finally got sick of Jamies Winston struggling and went back to Ryan Fitzpatrick. And it almost paid off with a win in Cincinnati. Can the switch reignite an offense that was so dynamic in the first two weeks? Speaking of dynamic offenses, Carolina put up 36 points last week! And they know they'd better keep winning. Because those pesky Saints just don't lose.
Steelers (4-2-1) at Ravens (4-4): Pittsburgh-One of Pittsburgh's two losses this season was in its annual Sunday night game against the Ravens. That seems to be where the Steelers figured things out, though. They haven't lost since. Three in a row, all of them impressive, to move into first place. (By the way, the rest of the AFC North really needs to have their byes so it doesn't require math to work the Steelers' tie into those convoluted standings.) Anyway, a loss here drops Pittsburgh behind Baltimore (I think) and gives the Ravens the season series. If the Steelers win, though, they'll be in complete control of the division, especially since they'll have already played five of their division games.
Texans (5-3) at Broncos (3-5): Houston-Remember when the Texans started 0-3? Yeah, I don't either. Five consecutive wins later, they're in full control of the AFC South. It's been the opposite story for Denver. After starting 2-0, they're 1-5 since, with the only win coming against the Cardinals, which barely counts. So, yeah, teams going in two completely different directions. Can the Texans make it six in a row?
Chargers (5-2) at Seahawks (4-3): Chargers-Seattle's trip to London sure ignited something in them. Because they looked like a completely different team last week, and I'd even say they looked better than they did against a not-good Oakland team. We'll see how the Chargers respond after their one-point win in London. You know they've gotta be travel weary, going from LA to Cleveland to London before their bye week. Now they're in Seattle. Things are at least starting to get a little easier, though, as it's their first of four straight back on the West Coast. I'm curios to see how much of an impact the travel has had. If there's any, Seattle could take this one.
Rams (8-0) at Saints (6-1): New Orleans-This isn't just the best game of the week. It might be the best game in the NFL so far this season. At least until the Rams play the Chiefs in Mexico City. This also might be the one where we see the Rams suffer their first loss. That was quite an escape act last week against the Packers. (I have no idea how the Saints-Vikings game went since I was watching the World Series instead.) I'm not sure they do it again in New Orleans. And this game is doubly important for both teams, since it could end up determining which one will have home field in the NFC playoffs.
Packers (3-3-1) at Patriots (6-2): New England-How is it possible that Tom Brady and Aaron Rodgers have only faced each other once previously?! They've both been in the NFL for like 30 years and the Packers play the Patriots once every four years! Anyway, we should enjoy this matchup of two Hall of Fame quarterbacks, especially since we might not see it again. (Unless they meet in a Super Bowl, Green Bay and New England aren't scheduled to play again until 2022, when Brady will be 85 and probably still playing.) The Packers are still winless on the road this season and had to fly cross country after playing in LA last week. Advantage Patriots.
Titans (3-4) at Cowboys (3-4): Dallas-Apparently Dallas and Tennessee are both still in the league. It's been forever since they've both played. Especially the Titans, who had that early London start before their bye. At least it's given them plenty of time to figure out what's gone wrong during their three-game losing streak. Dallas has had plenty of time off, too, but they didn't need it as much. The Cowboys may be 3-4, but they're winless on the road and undefeated at home. And they're at home on Monday night.
This Week: 1-0
Last Week: 12-2
Overall: 76-44-2
We're also finally done with London games, as all remaining contests will take place on this side of The Pond. However, this is also one of the weeks where there are six teams with byes (seriously why is four byes each week from Weeks 4-11 so difficult to figure out?), which means we're light on the total number of games in store.
Thursday Night: San Francisco (Win)
Bears (4-3) at Bills (2-6): Chicago-Do we have to accept the Chicago Bears as legitimate contenders in the NFC North? I'm still not completely sold, but here we are at midseason and they're just a half-game out of first (and ahead of the Packers in the standings). The Bills, meanwhile, look completely lost against good teams. I guess that's what happens when you don't have a quarterback. Chicago should go in there and come away with a victory.
Chiefs (7-1) at Browns (2-5-1): Kansas City-So, let me see if I've got this straight? Hue Jackson goes 1-31 over two seasons and manages to keep his job, then gets fired in the middle of the year when they already have two wins and have been competitive in all but their last two games? Definitely much more in play here (probably regarding Baker Mayfield). The timing just feels odd. Especially since they haven't had their bye yet. Kansas City, meanwhile, should just keep on rolling.
Jets (3-5) at Dolphins (4-4): Miami-After they won the first meeting against the Jets, we thought the Dolphins might be actual contenders. But it's sure looking like that was actually a mirage. Because, as it turns out, the Titans aren't really that good, and Miami's only win after that 3-0 start (against three bad teams) came in overtime (albeit against a good Bears team). And they sure got smacked around last week. They're better than the Jets, though. That should get them over .500.
Lions (3-4) at Vikings (4-3-1): Minnesota-Thanks to that Packers-Vikings tie, everybody in the NFC North is within a game and a half of each other. Which makes division games that much more important. And Minnesota's got a lot of them left. This is actually the first of three straight for the Vikings, who play the Patriots right after. So, yeah, losing to the Lions would be bad. Especially since it would leave them only a half-game ahead of Detroit.
Falcons (3-4) at Redskins (5-2): Washington-It hasn't always been pretty, but the Redskins have gotten the job done week after week. And Alex Smith has them in first place with a chance to hit the midway point at 6-2. The Falcons, meanwhile, desperately need a win if they have any shot at the other wild card spot (assuming Carolina and New Orleans both make the playoffs). I'm not sure they get it, though. Especially if the Redskins get out to an early lead.
Buccaneers (3-4) at Panthers (5-2): Carolina-Tampa Bay finally got sick of Jamies Winston struggling and went back to Ryan Fitzpatrick. And it almost paid off with a win in Cincinnati. Can the switch reignite an offense that was so dynamic in the first two weeks? Speaking of dynamic offenses, Carolina put up 36 points last week! And they know they'd better keep winning. Because those pesky Saints just don't lose.
Steelers (4-2-1) at Ravens (4-4): Pittsburgh-One of Pittsburgh's two losses this season was in its annual Sunday night game against the Ravens. That seems to be where the Steelers figured things out, though. They haven't lost since. Three in a row, all of them impressive, to move into first place. (By the way, the rest of the AFC North really needs to have their byes so it doesn't require math to work the Steelers' tie into those convoluted standings.) Anyway, a loss here drops Pittsburgh behind Baltimore (I think) and gives the Ravens the season series. If the Steelers win, though, they'll be in complete control of the division, especially since they'll have already played five of their division games.
Texans (5-3) at Broncos (3-5): Houston-Remember when the Texans started 0-3? Yeah, I don't either. Five consecutive wins later, they're in full control of the AFC South. It's been the opposite story for Denver. After starting 2-0, they're 1-5 since, with the only win coming against the Cardinals, which barely counts. So, yeah, teams going in two completely different directions. Can the Texans make it six in a row?
Chargers (5-2) at Seahawks (4-3): Chargers-Seattle's trip to London sure ignited something in them. Because they looked like a completely different team last week, and I'd even say they looked better than they did against a not-good Oakland team. We'll see how the Chargers respond after their one-point win in London. You know they've gotta be travel weary, going from LA to Cleveland to London before their bye week. Now they're in Seattle. Things are at least starting to get a little easier, though, as it's their first of four straight back on the West Coast. I'm curios to see how much of an impact the travel has had. If there's any, Seattle could take this one.
Rams (8-0) at Saints (6-1): New Orleans-This isn't just the best game of the week. It might be the best game in the NFL so far this season. At least until the Rams play the Chiefs in Mexico City. This also might be the one where we see the Rams suffer their first loss. That was quite an escape act last week against the Packers. (I have no idea how the Saints-Vikings game went since I was watching the World Series instead.) I'm not sure they do it again in New Orleans. And this game is doubly important for both teams, since it could end up determining which one will have home field in the NFC playoffs.
Packers (3-3-1) at Patriots (6-2): New England-How is it possible that Tom Brady and Aaron Rodgers have only faced each other once previously?! They've both been in the NFL for like 30 years and the Packers play the Patriots once every four years! Anyway, we should enjoy this matchup of two Hall of Fame quarterbacks, especially since we might not see it again. (Unless they meet in a Super Bowl, Green Bay and New England aren't scheduled to play again until 2022, when Brady will be 85 and probably still playing.) The Packers are still winless on the road this season and had to fly cross country after playing in LA last week. Advantage Patriots.
Titans (3-4) at Cowboys (3-4): Dallas-Apparently Dallas and Tennessee are both still in the league. It's been forever since they've both played. Especially the Titans, who had that early London start before their bye. At least it's given them plenty of time to figure out what's gone wrong during their three-game losing streak. Dallas has had plenty of time off, too, but they didn't need it as much. The Cowboys may be 3-4, but they're winless on the road and undefeated at home. And they're at home on Monday night.
This Week: 1-0
Last Week: 12-2
Overall: 76-44-2
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)